A Different Look at Genesis

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A Different Look at Genesis​
I thought it would be interesting to write about this instead of end-times for a change. Some of you may have read bits and pieces of my thoughts on this but I thought it was time I put them altogether into one comprehensive piece.

I am a creationist but I'm also not a "young-earther". Sometimes we have to look at what the bible doesn't say on an issue to grasp a larger truth. Our God is eternal so could this rock we call earth have been around for a billion years or so before God decided to redesign it? Sure, I can live with that. If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God, could creation have taken 7000 years? I'm open to that possibility as well. Today, however, I want to focus on what happened after God created Adam.

For example, young-earthers want to believe that when God created Adam, after His day of rest, He created Eve and they woke up the next morning and went straight to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, the bible doesn't say that!

We don’t know how long Adam was in the garden alone before God made Eve. It could have been hundreds of years or more. We also don’t know how long the both lived in the garden before the fall. I believe it's possible they could have lived thousands of years in the garden because they were created as eternal beings with access to the Tree of Life. In fact, before sin entered into the world everything was eternal because there was no death. Everything that God created was very good! There was no rot and decay among the plant life. From Gen. 1:29-30 it can be assumed that there were no meat eaters and everything that ate had a vegetarian type diet.

God told everything He created to be fruitful and multiply and I believe that was meant for Adam and Eve as well. Here are a couple of things you may not have considered before. One is that as perfect human beings, they most likely had use of 100% of their brain, whereas science tells us that presently we only use about 10% of our brain. Imagine their intelligence! Sometimes they are pictured as doe-eyed innocents lost in a majestic garden and other times they’re pictured as little more than ignorant cave people but I believe both of those pictures vastly under estimate the perfection of God’s creation.

Here is another thing that is never spoken of. We know that Eve had children before the fall because as part of their judgment in Gen. 3:16, God changed the parameters of child birth. If she had never had children how would she know the difference? I think if we reverse engineer this verse we can assume that prior to the fall childbirth was virtually painless and the length of pregnancy was much shorter. I believe it is very possible that they had hundreds or thousands of children before the fall! The biblical record of childbirth just starts after the fall, when death entered into the equation and "time" began to matter.

Recognizing this possibility solves three of the mysteries that surround the stories in Genesis. The first is that this would explain the “others" that Cain was concerned about (Gen. 4:14). The second would be the identity of the “sons of God” that mated with the daughters of men in Gen. 6:4. The third would be where the “giants” came from that are also found in vs. 4.

Is it possible that in God’s mind He separated the children of Adam and Eve into two groups? Perhaps the ones conceived before the fall which were eternal and had no prior knowledge of evil He considered “children of God” and those conceived after the fall would be considered the “children of men” because they lost access to the Tree of Life and were no longer His children but the children, so to speak, of the Evil One now that they had received the basic sin nature that we all would inherit.

Speaking to that issue, I’m not a scientist but it’s my opinion that both of those trees had genetic/dna consequences. The Tree of Life extended their lives and added to their aspect as eternal beings, which was one of the aspects of the likeness of God in which they were created. From their partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the only way it made them more like God was the newly acquired knowledge and awareness of evil. That knowledge, I believe, was also inherently passed down through the generations via our gene pool passed down through the man’s seed. That is why God had to use His seed and a virgin so Jesus could be born w/o that basic sin nature. It was the only way He had a chance to live a sinless life and thus become the pure and spotless Lamb that was sacrificed for our sakes.

This also explains why they were so long-lived before the flood. It took time for the eternal aspect of their DNA to degrade down to the point where our life span had decreased to 120 years or less.

I also believe the antediluvian civilization because of the sons of God, was far more advanced then we give them credit for and thankfully most of that knowledge was lost in the flood. As we were created in Their image we most likely received the desire to explore and create as well. Imagine the things we could come up with if we had access to 100% of our brain. I believe they excelled at agriculture and animal husbandry and as herbalists and many other sciences that we lost because of the flood.

When evil came upon the earth it wouldn’t surprise me if their knowledge took a darker turn towards genetic manipulation and plant based chemistry. Perhaps they are the ones that created the ancient carnivores like T-Rexes and such and it’s possible that they mixed human and animal DNA to come up with the creatures from Greek Mythology as well, whose stories were passed down from the sons of Noah which were added to or changed as what happens when tales are passed down through the generations. Let’s not forget the possibility of plant-based chemical enhancements and DNA manipulation that could create the “giants” and “men of renown” also from Gen. 6:4.

I’m not declaring everything in this article to be the truth but as seekers of the truth shouldn’t we consider all the possibilities that are out there? These are just some of the thoughts I’ve pondered over the years on this, to me, very interesting topic. I do have one question for those who have a leaning towards evolution. What would the “half-life” be of a creature with either eternal or partial eternal DNA? It wouldn’t surprise me if it registered a couple hundred million years or more!
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Trekson said:
A Different Look at Genesis​
I thought it would be interesting to write about this instead of end-times for a change. Some of you may have read bits and pieces of my thoughts on this but I thought it was time I put them altogether into one comprehensive piece.

I am a creationist but I'm also not a "young-earther". Sometimes we have to look at what the bible doesn't say on an issue to grasp a larger truth. Our God is eternal so could this rock we call earth have been around for a billion years or so before God decided to redesign it? Sure, I can live with that. If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God, could creation have taken 7000 years? I'm open to that possibility as well. Today, however, I want to focus on what happened after God created Adam.

For example, young-earthers want to believe that when God created Adam, after His day of rest, He created Eve and they woke up the next morning and went straight to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, the bible doesn't say that!

We don’t know how long Adam was in the garden alone before God made Eve. It could have been hundreds of years or more. We also don’t know how long the both lived in the garden before the fall. I believe it's possible they could have lived thousands of years in the garden because they were created as eternal beings with access to the Tree of Life. In fact, before sin entered into the world everything was eternal because there was no death. Everything that God created was very good! There was no rot and decay among the plant life. From Gen. 1:29-30 it can be assumed that there were no meat eaters and everything that ate had a vegetarian type diet.

God told everything He created to be fruitful and multiply and I believe that was meant for Adam and Eve as well. Here are a couple of things you may not have considered before. One is that as perfect human beings, they most likely had use of 100% of their brain, whereas science tells us that presently we only use about 10% of our brain. Imagine their intelligence! Sometimes they are pictured as doe-eyed innocents lost in a majestic garden and other times they’re pictured as little more than ignorant cave people but I believe both of those pictures vastly under estimate the perfection of God’s creation.

Here is another thing that is never spoken of. We know that Eve had children before the fall because as part of their judgment in Gen. 3:16, God changed the parameters of child birth. If she had never had children how would she know the difference? I think if we reverse engineer this verse we can assume that prior to the fall childbirth was virtually painless and the length of pregnancy was much shorter. I believe it is very possible that they had hundreds or thousands of children before the fall! The biblical record of childbirth just starts after the fall, when death entered into the equation and "time" began to matter.

Recognizing this possibility solves three of the mysteries that surround the stories in Genesis. The first is that this would explain the “others" that Cain was concerned about (Gen. 4:14). The second would be the identity of the “sons of God” that mated with the daughters of men in Gen. 6:4. The third would be where the “giants” came from that are also found in vs. 4.

Is it possible that in God’s mind He separated the children of Adam and Eve into two groups? Perhaps the ones conceived before the fall which were eternal and had no prior knowledge of evil He considered “children of God” and those conceived after the fall would be considered the “children of men” because they lost access to the Tree of Life and were no longer His children but the children, so to speak, of the Evil One now that they had received the basic sin nature that we all would inherit.

Speaking to that issue, I’m not a scientist but it’s my opinion that both of those trees had genetic/dna consequences. The Tree of Life extended their lives and added to their aspect as eternal beings, which was one of the aspects of the likeness of God in which they were created. From their partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the only way it made them more like God was the newly acquired knowledge and awareness of evil. That knowledge, I believe, was also inherently passed down through the generations via our gene pool passed down through the man’s seed. That is why God had to use His seed and a virgin so Jesus could be born w/o that basic sin nature. It was the only way He had a chance to live a sinless life and thus become the pure and spotless Lamb that was sacrificed for our sakes.

This also explains why they were so long-lived before the flood. It took time for the eternal aspect of their DNA to degrade down to the point where our life span had decreased to 120 years or less.

I also believe the antediluvian civilization because of the sons of God, was far more advanced then we give them credit for and thankfully most of that knowledge was lost in the flood. As we were created in Their image we most likely received the desire to explore and create as well. Imagine the things we could come up with if we had access to 100% of our brain. I believe they excelled at agriculture and animal husbandry and as herbalists and many other sciences that we lost because of the flood.

When evil came upon the earth it wouldn’t surprise me if their knowledge took a darker turn towards genetic manipulation and plant based chemistry. Perhaps they are the ones that created the ancient carnivores like T-Rexes and such and it’s possible that they mixed human and animal DNA to come up with the creatures from Greek Mythology as well, whose stories were passed down from the sons of Noah which were added to or changed as what happens when tales are passed down through the generations. Let’s not forget the possibility of plant-based chemical enhancements and DNA manipulation that could create the “giants” and “men of renown” also from Gen. 6:4.

I’m not declaring everything in this article to be the truth but as seekers of the truth shouldn’t we consider all the possibilities that are out there? These are just some of the thoughts I’ve pondered over the years on this, to me, very interesting topic. I do have one question for those who have a leaning towards evolution. What would the “half-life” be of a creature with either eternal or partial eternal DNA? It wouldn’t surprise me if it registered a couple hundred million years or more!
The simple truth is that evolution is about taking something that exists and modifying it. It never can explain where the thing that existed came from. Evolutionist never try to explain where the thing that is modified came from.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
H. Richard said:
The simple truth is that evolution is about taking something that exists and modifying it. It never can explain where the thing that existed came from. Evolutionist never try to explain where the thing that is modified came from.
Why is it that creationists reject the churchfathers' allegorical reading of Genesis, but so happily take Irenaeus' and Augustine's notion of creatio ex nihilo on board? If you insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1, shouldn't you come to the conclusion that God created everything out of the primordial chaos that is "Tohuwabohu", or as Wisdom 11:17 puts it "out of formless matter", that just seems to have always been there?
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Junobet, I don't really know what those guys notions were but I don't believe there was anything that God didn't create. My notion of the big bang theory is God snapping His fingers, Jesus speaking the words and the HS providing the bang at the moment it was thought...Let there be...
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
All I know is that Jesus has being teaching a friend of mine about genesis for over 30 years and stil hasnt got past chapter 2, so good luck.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Biblically illiterate?
If you believe that than you have no Idea How Jesus teaches, but that just proves that all your talk is your own learning nothing to do with the leading or teaching of the Holy Spirit.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Hi Junobet, I don't really know what those guys notions were but I don't believe there was anything that God didn't create. My notion of the big bang theory is God snapping His fingers, Jesus speaking the words and the HS providing the bang at the moment it was thought...Let there be...
Hi there Trekson!

Well, the question is out of what did God create the world: out of nothing or out of matter eternally pre-existent with God? You and H.Richard seem to side for “out of nothing” and so do I. I know why I do, but I ask myself why you do.

The Big Bang Theory was first formulated by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest and professor of physics, who was of course very much inspired by the 4th/5th century Augustinian doctrine saying that God created the entire universe - including space and time - out of nothing. Augustine’s doctrine of “Creatio Ex Nihilo” is based on fusing a highly allegorical reading of Genesis with Greek philosophy (just like his doctrines on the Trinity were). Another of his doctrines is “Creatio Continua”, according to which creation is an on-going process. Which is why most Christians don’t have the slightest problem with the Big Bang or evolution.

But what Genesis 1 literally says is that the Tohuwabohu is already there and that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” when He said “let there be light”. The only time something like “creation out of nothing” is more or less explicitly mentioned in Biblical literature is in 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 7:28), a book from the late 1th century BC. But creationists are by default Protestants, so they don’t have that book in their Biblical Canon.

So why should a creationist assume that God had no pre-existing matter at His disposal when Genesis 1 very much seems to state otherwise?
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Junobet, To answer your question, "So why should a creationist assume that God had no pre-existing matter at His disposal when Genesis 1 very much seems to state otherwise?"

I can only speak for myself and I really can't explain why I believe this but this is what I believe. Do I think the creation of the entire universe was Day 1 in Genesis? No, I don't. No one knows how long it was between the time of Let there be... and the Universe was created and yes I believe it was created out of nothing, and the time until God got around to; Let there be...in our general location of space. Possibly, millions, billions or trillions of years. At most I believe that Genesis is speaking of our galaxy, at least of our solar system.

Considering that, then of course I believe our general spatial locale had elements in it that God redesigned for His purpose. If God is a creator then you don't stop creating. Yes, He rested for a day, however long that was but as he is omni-present and omnipotent, He has probably been working with several galaxies since then doing whatever it is He likes to do.

Personally, I believe the universe is teeming with all kinds and varieties of life. They may not necessarily be sentient but I doubt very much that God's imagination was exhausted with the creation of Earth. The belief that we are totally alone in the universe is quite arrogant on man's part, if you ask me. I would even say that it is possible that He created other sentient beings that just happen to be, NOT in His image. We could simply be part of his creation "check-list", so to speak. With that said, we might also be His favorite BUT with a being that is the totality of who and what God is, it's NOT impossible, imo, that our human situation, could be playing out in multiple ways in a variety of galaxies and/or dimensions simultaneously. Personally, I never try to limit God or put Him in a box of my limited understanding. Wouldn't He be the very defintion of "the sky's the limit" meaning unlimited. I mean eternity is and has been quite a long time. To put Him in a 6000 yr. old box is ridiculous.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Hi Junobet, To answer your question, "So why should a creationist assume that God had no pre-existing matter at His disposal when Genesis 1 very much seems to state otherwise?"

I can only speak for myself and I really can't explain why I believe this but this is what I believe. Do I think the creation of the entire universe was Day 1 in Genesis? No, I don't. No one knows how long it was between the time of Let there be... and the Universe was created and yes I believe it was created out of nothing, and the time until God got around to; Let there be...in our general location of space. Possibly, millions, billions or trillions of years. At most I believe that Genesis is speaking of our galaxy, at least of our solar system.

Considering that, then of course I believe our general spatial locale had elements in it that God redesigned for His purpose. If God is a creator then you don't stop creating. Yes, He rested for a day, however long that was but as he is omni-present and omnipotent, He has probably been working with several galaxies since then doing whatever it is He likes to do.

Personally, I believe the universe is teeming with all kinds and varieties of life. They may not necessarily be sentient but I doubt very much that God's imagination was exhausted with the creation of Earth. The belief that we are totally alone in the universe is quite arrogant on man's part, if you ask me. I would even say that it is possible that He created other sentient beings that just happen to be, NOT in His image. We could simply be part of his creation "check-list", so to speak. With that said, we might also be His favorite BUT with a being that is the totality of who and what God is, it's NOT impossible, imo, that our human situation, could be playing out in multiple ways in a variety of galaxies and/or dimensions simultaneously. Personally, I never try to limit God or put Him in a box of my limited understanding. Wouldn't He be the very defintion of "the sky's the limit" meaning unlimited. I mean eternity is and has been quite a long time. To put Him in a 6000 yr. old box is ridiculous.
Well Trekson,
I respect your beliefs, even though I don’t share all of them. To begin with I think that Augustine makes a pretty good case for the assumption that eternity is not just a long, long, never-ending time, but no time at all. To me “nothing” means just that: no time, no space, no stuff, no laws of physics … . That’s impossible to imagine for any of us, so I can see why anthropomorphic descriptions of God can be helpful to a degree, but you are very right when you say that we can’t put God in a box.

One thing I respect in the church-fathers is that they made use of the best ‘science’ and philosophies of their days to get a better understanding of Scripture and to reflect and formulate Christian faith. And there are still many theologians around who do just that with the philosophy, science and knowledge of today.In a way that’s what you try to do when you read the Big Bang Theory and all our modern knowledge about galaxies and universes into Genesis. So why do you stop short at what Biology/Evolution and academic Biblical studies have to tell us?

Today we know that Genesis 1+2 were never written to tell us how and in what order this world came into being. These are two different texts from different times fused together. They use much of the imagery of the then well known Mesopotamian creation myths of their days (Enuma Elish and Atra-Hasis) and give a new twist to them as to make a number of theological points about God and our relationship with Him: for example Genesis 1 tells us that God is very pleased with His good creation and that we ought to take a rest here and there to contemplate it, and Genesis 2 tries to explain why the world with all its suffering and evil often doesn’t look all that good to us.

To me evolution is a theory that makes the way in which God creates sound even more awesome. IMHO, just like quantum physics, evolutionary biology harmonizes beautifully with Augustine’s teaching of “Creatio continua”. This teaching doesn’t say God keeps creating universes (even though I agree with you that He might). It tells us that Creation is not just a divine act in the past:

“Another central feature of Christian creation theology is the notion that creation is a continuous process. God's creation exists at every moment of time because it is upheld by his sustaining power, the work both of the Word and of the Holy Spirit, "the Lord and Giver of life." This doctrine lies at the heart of the covenant God established with the whole of creation in the beginning and renewed after the Flood (Gen. 9:8-17; Bouma-Prediger 99). Thus, theologians did not take the statement that "God finished his creation"(Gen. 2:3) to mean that God no longer creates. It would be more accurate to say, and the biblical tradition is explicit about this, that God is at every moment creating, for the creation would cease to exist altogether if God were to withdraw his sustaining power.

[SIZE=small]Continuous creation ([/SIZE][SIZE=small]creatio continua[/SIZE][SIZE=small]) is the ongoing activity of the initial creation out of nothing. [/SIZE]

The two activities really cannot be separated, but they can be distinguished logically in that creatio ex nihilo highlights the divine transcendence, the "wholly otherness" of God from the creation, while creatio continua expresses the divine immanence. God's continual presence in creation, God's continual providence over creation, God's continual governance of creation--all are conveyed by the notion of creatio continua.
The relationship of these two notions about creation is developed in the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine asserted that creation is an instantaneous act: all of its materials, processes, capacities, and pathways appear at the very instant God speaks the universe into being (in this sense of instantaneous creation one could perhaps say that God "finished" his creation). However, the creation obediently responds to the divine "Let there be…" over time.”
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay02.asp
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Junobet, Your words: "Today we know that Genesis 1+2 were never written to tell us how and in what order this world came into being. These are two different texts from different times fused together."

Do we "know" that or is it assumed? There are several places in the bible, most biblical scholars and even Josephus who accredited Moses with the authorship of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. If we believe that the whole of the Bible is God's word wouldn't that include Genesis, a history most likely told to Moses by God? That's the problem with the "academic" approach. If one doesn't approach God's word with the leading of the Holy Spirit, it won't make sense to them so they try to create a "different" sense that they can "intellectually" deal with it.

Your words: "So why do you stop short at what Biology/Evolution and academic Biblical studies have to tell us?"

I believe that God is the creator of all science, so I'm not anti-science but all our self-proclaimed knowledge in the sciences of Biology/Evolution and every other science out there is at best in an infantile state. It's based on conjecture with little to no historical provable facts. I think it takes way more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. There is just too much variety in every species of life to believe that it all came from single cell organisms and spans of hundreds of millions of years. Why don't you just say we were seeded by an alien species who died out a long time ago. Intelligent design even if it wasn't God makes more sense than evolution. Even if creation could be proven the world of science would withhold that fact because the implications would be just to scary for them to accept.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
Why is it that creationists reject the churchfathers' allegorical reading of Genesis, but so happily take Irenaeus' and Augustine's notion of creatio ex nihilo on board? If you insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1, shouldn't you come to the conclusion that God created everything out of the primordial chaos that is "Tohuwabohu", or as Wisdom 11:17 puts it "out of formless matter", that just seems to have always been there?
This is not factual. According to Dr. John William none of the ECFs voiced a belief in old earth, and 12 of them believed in YEC. His five-part article can be found at the following address;
http://www.reasons.org/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
StanJ said:
This is not factual. According to Dr. John William none of the ECFs voiced a belief in old earth, and 12 of them believed in YEC. His five-part article can be found at the following address;
http://w ww.reasons.org/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5
Stan,

Dr John Millam (not William) has reached a wise conclusion. His article, 'The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?' makes an excellent concluding statement, in my view:
Taken together, these observations strongly undercut the case for using these early Jewish and Christian figures to support modern young-earth claims. Much of the impetus for the belief that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies provided a true chronology was apologetic, linguistic, cultural, and eschatological, rather than an accurate understanding of the text. So while these men can provide fresh insights into Genesis because they are free from our modern assumptions and concerns, we should not use them as our model for understanding the Genesis genealogies.

The most important lesson we can learn from studying these early Jewish and Christian writers is that none of them considered the Genesis genealogies or the age of the earth to be matters of orthodoxy. Only the issue of creation ex nihilo rose to that level. Most of these early figures were entirely silent or said very little on this subject. Even those few (6 or possibly 8) who did specifically gave (sic) chronological estimates showed no indication of the kind of dogmatism on this issue that we see today. Even at the peak of the Protestant Reformation, where these subjects received a lot of attention, the age of the earth was never treated as an essential issue. Rather, it was treated as a secondary issue with room for disagreement. It is my expressed hope that all sides of the debate will take that to heart, reexamine Scripture and openly dialog with one another.
Augustine wrote in City of God (Book 11, chapter 6),
For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
However, Augustine did promote some contradictory views on creation in his writings. See 'Augustine on the Days of Creation'.

Dr Norman Geisler, a leading evangelical apologist and theologian, has concluded:

At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides [old-earth and young-earth creationism] could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences....

In summary, there are numerous ways that one can account for long periods of time and still accept a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2. That is, one does not have to give up the normal historical-grammatical way of interpreting the Bible in order to embrace these views. Therefore, there is no necessary conflict between Genesis and the belief that the universe is millions or even billions of years old. Indeed, of all the ways of interpreting Genesis 1-2, only the "religious only" or "myth" view is flatly incompatible with an evangelical understanding of Scripture, since it rejects that Genesis 1 is providing literal information about the origin of the space-time universe and all living things (Geisler 2003:471, 646).

Oz

Works consulted
Augustine 1887. The city of God. Tr by M Dods. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 2. Ed by P Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Rev and ed for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm (Accessed 6 September 2016).

Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Hi Junobet, Your words: "Today we know that Genesis 1+2 were never written to tell us how and in what order this world came into being. These are two different texts from different times fused together."

Do we "know" that or is it assumed? There are several places in the bible, most biblical scholars and even Josephus who accredited Moses with the authorship of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. If we believe that the whole of the Bible is God's word wouldn't that include Genesis, a history most likely told to Moses by God? That's the problem with the "academic" approach. If one doesn't approach God's word with the leading of the Holy Spirit, it won't make sense to them so they try to create a "different" sense that they can "intellectually" deal with it.
I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. You’d hardly write of yourself in the third person nor could you write about your own death. Also you’d stick to one creation story rather than giving two different stories.
For the most part the Biblical scholars who dug deep enough into Scripture to develop and use the documentary hypothesis (whose basic tenets are academic consensus now) were/are devout Christians. I must say I find the claim, that you are more led by the Holy Spirit when studying scripture than they are, rather presumptuous.

Your words: "So why do you stop short at what Biology/Evolution and academic Biblical studies have to tell us?"

I believe that God is the creator of all science, so I'm not anti-science but all our self-proclaimed knowledge in the sciences of Biology/Evolution and every other science out there is at best in an infantile state. It's based on conjecture with little to no historical provable facts. I think it takes way more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. There is just too much variety in every species of life to believe that it all came from single cell organisms and spans of hundreds of millions of years. Why don't you just say we were seeded by an alien species who died out a long time ago. Intelligent design even if it wasn't God makes more sense than evolution. Even if creation could be proven the world of science would withhold that fact because the implications would be just to scary for them to accept.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that accepting the scientific consensus about evolution somehow means you can’t believe that God created/creates the world. Don’t be misled by atheist fools like Richard Dawkins. Go for Francis Collins instead: http://biologos.org/
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
This is not factual. According to Dr. John William none of the ECFs voiced a belief in old earth, and 12 of them believed in YEC. His five-part article can be found at the following address;
http://www.reasons.org/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5

Hi there Stan,
I’m afraid you neither understood my question nor the article that you linked.
I am not that interested in the finer nuances between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. From my point of view both are almost equally bizarre. Like most Christians living in the 21th century I subscribe to Theistic Evolution.
Your article rightly notes that the church-fathers no more discussed young earth creationism vs old earth creationism vs evolution, than they discussed Galileo’s heliocentrism. These topics simply weren’t on their table yet. Their question was whether matter always existed and was then used by God to create the world, or whether God also created matter. Some early church-fathers believed matter always existed, but eventually most of Christianity followed Augustine’s doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo”.
Contrary to what H. Richard seems to assume, ‘evolutionists’ can fully subscribe to “creation ex nihilo”. (Evolution just makes statements about how existing live evolved and leaves the question if and how matter came into being to other disciplines, such as physics and metaphysics.)
But I wonder why modern-day creationists go for “creatio ex nihilo”. After all Augustine bases it on an extremely allegorical reading of Genesis and a good deal of extra-biblical reasoning. If I had a modern-day creationist approach to Genesis, I’d probably think the camp arguing for matter always having existed had much more of a point.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
Hi there Stan,
I’m afraid you neither understood my question nor the article that you linked.
I am not that interested in the finer nuances between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. From my point of view both are almost equally bizarre. Like most Christians living in the 21th century I subscribe to Theistic Evolution.
Your article rightly notes that the church-fathers no more discussed young earth creationism vs old earth creationism vs evolution, than they discussed Galileo’s heliocentrism. These topics simply weren’t on their table yet. Their question was whether matter always existed and was then used by God to create the world, or whether God also created matter. Some early church-fathers believed matter always existed, but eventually most of Christianity followed Augustine’s doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo”.
Contrary to what H. Richard seems to assume, ‘evolutionists’ can fully subscribe to “creation ex nihilo”. (Evolution just makes statements about how existing live evolved and leaves the question if and how matter came into being to other disciplines, such as physics and metaphysics.)
But I wonder why modern-day creationists go for “creatio ex nihilo”. After all Augustine bases it on an extremely allegorical reading of Genesis and a good deal of extra-biblical reasoning. If I had a modern-day creationist approach to Genesis, I’d probably think the camp arguing for matter always having existed had much more of a point.
I completely understood your post and I directly addressed your fallacious assertion. That's why I posted the link I did to show that your assertion about the ECFs was wrong. You made another fallacious assertion above when you state; "Like most Christians living in the 21th century I subscribe to Theistic Evolution."
I know what you subscribe to but it is not like most Christians.
I've attached a picture of a Gallup poll done a little over two years ago.
View attachment 415
 

Attachments

  • yvoivdxwhusms4bzco2nnq.png
    yvoivdxwhusms4bzco2nnq.png
    34.9 KB · Views: 0

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
junobet said:
I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. You’d hardly write of yourself in the third person nor could you write about your own death. Also you’d stick to one creation story rather than giving two different stories.
For the most part the Biblical scholars who dug deep enough into Scripture to develop and use the documentary hypothesis (whose basic tenets are academic consensus now) were/are devout Christians. I must say I find the claim, that you are more led by the Holy Spirit when studying scripture than they are, rather presumptuous.
junobet,

You say 'you'd hardly write of yourself in the third person'. Who said? I write a daily journal and have often said to friends, 'He wrote', when I'm referring to myself. You might not do it, but I have done it. Besides, to constantly write 'I' in autobiography may sound egotistical to the reader.

Here's one diagrammatic view of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis for authorship of the Pentateuch:


(diagram courtesy www.cs.umd.edu)

Here is a UK Apologetics refutation of the JEPD theory:

THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS': Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?
JEDP, known as the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis, was developed by theological liberals and not by Bible-believing Christians.

What did Jesus and the Pentateuch say about the Law of Moses? The Pentateuch often refers to Moses as the author (eg Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9). Christ and the apostles gave unequivocal support for Moses as the author of the Torah (Law), e.g. John 5:46-57; 7:19; Acts 3:22 [cf. Deut. 18:15]; and Rom. 10:5.

Do you understand the oxymoron nature of your first sentence, 'I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch'? :wub:

Oz
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Junobet, Your words: “I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. You’d hardly write of yourself in the third person nor could you write about your own death. Also you’d stick to one creation story rather than giving two different stories.”

Jesus attributed the Pentateuch to Moses and as He is the Living Word, I will trust Him over 1000 academics any day of the week. Deut. 24:1 – Matt. 19: 7-9, Nu. 33:2, Lk 2:22 – Lev. 12:2, John 5:46-47, 7:19 to name a few. What is the second view of creation? Joshua is considered the author of Deut. 34 which contains Moses obit, so to speak.

Your words: “I must say I find the claim, that you are more led by the Holy Spirit when studying scripture than they are, rather presumptuous.”

I never made a personal claim, I was speaking in general terms. But here are the facts: Prov. 3:5-7a - "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes:..."

1 Cor. 1:27 - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Academics and intelligence outside of the HS is never sufficient enough to hope to understand any of the scriptures. You either accept them all or none. There is no picking and choosing. That was already done when we received to 66 books we call the bible.

Your words: “You seem to be under the misapprehension that accepting the scientific consensus about evolution somehow means you can’t believe that God created/creates the world. Don’t be misled by atheist fools like Richard Dawkins. Go for Francis Collins instead: http://biologos.org/


You either take God’s word for it or you don’t. I think He gave a pretty good summary of His creative efforts.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Trekson said:
Hi Junobet, Your words: “I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. You’d hardly write of yourself in the third person nor could you write about your own death. Also you’d stick to one creation story rather than giving two different stories.”

Jesus attributed the Pentateuch to Moses and as He is the Living Word, I will trust Him over 1000 academics any day of the week. Deut. 24:1 – Matt. 19: 7-9, Nu. 33:2, Lk 2:22 – Lev. 12:2, John 5:46-47, 7:19 to name a few. What is the second view of creation? Joshua is considered the author of Deut. 34 which contains Moses obit, so to speak.

Your words: “I must say I find the claim, that you are more led by the Holy Spirit when studying scripture than they are, rather presumptuous.”

I never made a personal claim, I was speaking in general terms. But here are the facts: Prov. 3:5-7a - "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes:..."

1 Cor. 1:27 - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Academics and intelligence outside of the HS is never sufficient enough to hope to understand any of the scriptures. You either accept them all or none. There is no picking and choosing. That was already done when we received to 66 books we call the bible.

Your words: “You seem to be under the misapprehension that accepting the scientific consensus about evolution somehow means you can’t believe that God created/creates the world. Don’t be misled by atheist fools like Richard Dawkins. Go for Francis Collins instead: http://biologos.org/


You either take God’s word for it or you don’t. I think He gave a pretty good summary of His creative efforts.
Trekson,
how would you like it if somebody accused you of lacking the Holy Spirit because you happen to have “a different look on Genesis”? Please remember that the church at large has never been anti-intellectual – quite the contrary - and that intellect is very much a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8). I fear if people’s faith can only be preserved by shutting themselves off from state of the art science and academia, it can’t have been that strong in the first place and it might end up becoming entirely false and obsolete:
“I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures. (Francis Collins - director of the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium), Christian, author of "The Language of God")
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
OzSpen said:
junobet,

You say 'you'd hardly write of yourself in the third person'. Who said? I write a daily journal and have often said to friends, 'He wrote', when I'm referring to myself. You might not do it, but I have done it. Besides, to constantly write 'I' in autobiography may sound egotistical to the reader.

Here's one diagrammatic view of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis for authorship of the Pentateuch:


(diagram courtesy www.cs.umd.edu)

Here is a UK Apologetics refutation of the JEPD theory:
THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS': Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?
JEDP, known as the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis, was developed by theological liberals and not by Bible-believing Christians.

What did Jesus and the Pentateuch say about the Law of Moses? The Pentateuch often refers to Moses as the author (eg Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9). Christ and the apostles gave unequivocal support for Moses as the author of the Torah (Law), e.g. John 5:46-57; 7:19; Acts 3:22 [cf. Deut. 18:15]; and Rom. 10:5.

Do you understand the oxymoron nature of your first sentence, 'I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch'? :wub:

Oz
There is no oxymoron, OzPen. There’s are difference between knowing and being very certain. I just wish those “Bible-believing” Christians had the humility to see that difference. Maybe then they’d approach the Bible with more questions than pre-conceived answers.
If there was compelling evidence for the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Biblical Scholarship would change its mind. As it is the documentary hypothesis (first formulated by Wellhausen, but further discussed and developed since) is still taught in every accredited OT-Studies seminary from Princeton over Cambridge to Tübingen. It is part of the Church-approved curriculum for Religion in German Schools, which Genesis 1-2 being the text by which it is explained, because you don’t even need to know Hebrew to see the differences between Gen 1 and 2 in style and content. Please note that none of the verses from the Pentateuch you quoted say that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch. Of course the authors of the NT were still engulfed in the Jewish tradition that held that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. That does no more mean it was than most Protestants believing that Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenberg Church door means he actually did. And even people who are aware that he probably did not “nail them on the door”, still often use that phrase as a figure of speech.
The reason that “Bible-believing” Christians will never change their mind about the documentary hypothesis , whatever the evidence, is that they somehow seem to think that it would make the Pentateuch less inspired if it hadn’t been written by Moses. IMHO that is not so: academic tectual research just shows that the way these inspired texts came to us are more complicated than tradition thought them to be and that the Judaeo-Christian faith developed over a long long time.