Creationism is NOT Biblical

[busterdog]

If we take from the beginning of creation as Gen 1:1, then creationists have an worse fit, Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning of Creation, but on day six at the end of the creation. In contrast if we are trying to place the origin of sexual reproduction in Genesis 1, it would fit in somewhere from the Spirit of God brooded over the waters in verse one, and the creation of plants on day three.

Jesus could have said it better for our purposes of argument. I am satisfied with what was said as edification for me as a believer.

I still think my use of Jesus' reference to the "beginning" is better. In Gen. 1:1, the "beginning" refers to a span of days. Eg, the heavens were not complete on day one.

I will tell you quite frankly that when I look at this, I say, "Silly me, but of course Lord, you would be using "beginning" the way you used it in Gen. 1:1." To be a bit pious, I take a rather familiar tone because I am used to relating to this person (Jesus) this way.

I just have hard time seeing that the emergence of an evolved human being is a "beginning." Obviously that is my bias. But, it seems awkward.

In short, it works better as a way of relationship than a way of winning arguments. I understand that Sun Myung Moon may use the same form of logic and avoidance of scrutiny, but I frankly see no better way of proceeding. For example, both debate and academic consensus on such matters are failures.

I don't actually think it is talking about the beginning of the creation of the world, the creation of the world simply isn't the context Jesus was talking about. He was talking about God making human beings. This is how Matthew read it Matt 19:4 ...he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. Not the creation of the world, the creation of people. And as any biologist will tell you, human beings have always been male and female.

There is a question of how those clauses are constructed to make your point, though I understand your point. As noted, these phrases do not make crushing arguments on many subjects.

I don't think it is even a question of 'loose interpretation'. What is needed is to understand what Jesus was talking about and how he was using the passage in Genesis, and above all not to force the passage to say things it simply does not, or read you understanding of Genesis into what Jesus is saying.

I think the phrase resists a number of different attempts to force it into the shape of ammunition. The YEC use of these Words is as good as any, which gets us back to the OP.

I have lost track of the number of times Creationists claim that Jesus took Adam and Eve literally, or as Mark put it Jesus "clearly considered Adam and Eve our first parents". Jesus never even mentioned Adam and Eve, let alone told us we should take them literally or that they were the parent of the human race. He wasn't even teaching about the creation, he was talking about divorce. Jesus did treat Genesis as the authoritative word of God, but we see him here treating the Genesis as an allegorical lesson in God's plan for marriage now, rather than making any comment about how literal the passage is.

The passages above are what they are. Mark's position is supportable.

There is a bit of a curiosity in Gen. 2 and 3. KJV translates a word alternately as "woman" and "wife." However, the plain meaning of Gen. 2:24 is that marriage is in view. In fact, Gen. 2:24 is actually kind of wierd in that it goes out of its way on this point to make something sounding like an editorial comment. There isnt much color commentary in Gen. 1-3.

Gen 2:22 And the rib 06763, which the LORD 03068 God 0430 had taken 03947 from man 0120, made 01129 he a woman 0802, and brought 0935 her unto the man 0120. Gen 2:23 And Adam 0120 said 0559 , This 02063 [is] now 06471 bone 06106 of my bones 06106, and flesh 01320 of my flesh 01320: she 02063 shall be called 07121 Woman 0802, because she 02063 was taken 03947 out of Man 0376. Gen 2:24 Therefore 03651 shall a man 0376 leave 05800 his father 01 and his mother 0517, and shall cleave 01692 unto his wife 0802: and they shall be one 0259 flesh 01320. Gen 2:25 And they were both 08147 naked 06174, the man 0120 and his wife 0802, and were not ashamed 0954 .
The YEC has no trouble saying that the Jesus is Luke is the writer of Gen. 2:24 and will speak consistently.

That being said, "Noah" is better supported -- for the purposes of argument -- as a biblical character.

Well Creationists certainly read things into Jesus statement that simply aren't here, so that is hardly consistent with the most likely reading of the text. The plain reading of Genesis 2 is that Adam was formed before there were plants, then God made animals and birds, and then Eve. The Creationist interpretation of that chapter has to completely change the order of events in a very simple narrative.

The argument is that Gen. 1 and 2 are in conflict on the sequence? Obviously we have been down that road.

I would agree with Mallon's initial post, I would not call Creationism unbiblical as such, it is an interpretation of Genesis that has deep roots in church history, not the only reading of Genesis, but certainly a reasonable reading of the text, at least before we learned about geology, since then it is no more reasonable to hold it, than that other ancient literalist mistake geocentrism. I do agree though that the avid defence of Creationism has led them into to some very unbiblical and even anti-Creation views.

Reps for that.

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus could have said it better for our purposes of argument. I am satisfied with what was said as edification for me as a believer.

Certainly, but Jesus' message was about edifying our marriages rather than teaching Creationism.

I still think my use of Jesus' reference to the "beginning" is better. In Gen. 1:1, the "beginning" refers to a span of days. Eg, the heavens were not complete on day one.

But it isn't simply the beginning, it is the beginning of creation. That is day one or two, not day six. That interpretation of the verse has Jesus saying Adam and Eve were made at the start of the creation rather than day six, so the absolute rendering of 'beginning of creation' has to be fudged a bit to make it fit. I think it is much better to look at the context and see what Jesus was actually talking about, it refers to God creating people rather than the creation the heavens and the earth.

I will tell you quite frankly that when I look at this, I say, "Silly me, but of course Lord, you would be using "beginning" the way you used it in Gen. 1:1." To be a bit pious, I take a rather familiar tone because I am used to relating to this person (Jesus) this way.

I'm all for the familiarity busterdog, He has called us friends. However I don't think we can make his words fit so easily into boxes like that. John 15:27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

I just have hard time seeing that the emergence of an evolved human being is a "beginning." Obviously that is my bias. But, it seems awkward.

No more awkward than secular phrases like early man or the dawn of humanity. But Jesus wasn't trying to describe evolution, or talking about six day creation, or Adam and Eve as literal individuals, he was talking about marriage and God's original plan shown to us in Genesis. 'From the beginning' simply means 'when God made the human race', without any reference to the process God used.

In short, it works better as a way of relationship than a way of winning arguments. I understand that Sun Myung Moon may use the same form of logic and avoidance of scrutiny, but I frankly see no better way of proceeding. For example, both debate and academic consensus on such matters are failures.

The best we can do is keep a balance between personal walk with the Lord and integrity in our study of scripture.

I don't actually think it is talking about the beginning of the creation of the world, the creation of the world simply isn't the context Jesus was talking about. He was talking about God making human beings. This is how Matthew read it Matt 19:4 ...he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.Not the creation of the world, the creation of people. And as any biologist will tell you, human beings have always been male and female.

There is a question of how those clauses are constructed to make your point, though I understand your point. As noted, these phrases do not make crushing arguments on many subjects.

I think the phrase resists a number of different attempts to force it into the shape of ammunition. The YEC use of these Words is as good as any, which gets us back to the OP.

I agree it isn't good ammunition, I would love to be able to say Jesus' use of Genesis as an allegorical lesson on marriage shows us Genesis is an allegory. It doesn't. But what YECs do is problematic, it is one thing to have your own interpretation of the passage, and work out what you think the theological implications are, it is another to put word's in Jesus mouth and claim he said things he never did.

The passages above are what they are. Mark's position is supportable.

Not from those passages it isn't. Mark is claiming Jesus believed something he never told us. Basically Mark is taking his own interpretation of Genesis and because Jesus quoted from Genesis, he thinks Jesus must have interpret the passage the same way he does. But the passage simply does not say that.

There is a bit of a curiosity in Gen. 2 and 3. KJV translates a word alternately as "woman" and "wife." However, the plain meaning of Gen. 2:24 is that marriage is in view.

You get the same problem in NT Greek where the same word gunē can be translated as woman or wife, depending on context. An added complication in Genesis is the Woman was actually the name Adam gave her. She wasn't called Eve until after the fall.

In fact, Gen. 2:24 is actually kind of wierd in that it goes out of its way on this point to make something sounding like an editorial comment. There isnt much color commentary in Gen. 1-3.

Gen 2:22 And the rib 06763, which the LORD 03068 God 0430 had taken 03947 from man 0120, made 01129 he a woman 0802, and brought 0935 her unto the man 0120. Gen 2:23 And Adam 0120 said 0559 , This 02063 [is] now 06471 bone 06106 of my bones 06106, and flesh 01320 of my flesh 01320: she 02063 shall be called 07121 Woman 0802, because she 02063 was taken 03947 out of Man 0376. Gen 2:24 Therefore 03651 shall a man 0376 leave 05800 his father 01 and his mother 0517, and shall cleave 01692 unto his wife 0802: and they shall be one 0259 flesh 01320. Gen 2:25 And they were both 08147 naked 06174, the man 0120 and his wife 0802, and were not ashamed 0954 .

It is weird isn't it? I love it though, so did Jesus and Paul, it seems to be the most quoted verse from Genesis in the NT. You are right it does come across as editorial commentary. What I find fascinating is the sort of commentary it is. The story had just been talking about Eve being made from Adam's rib and Adam proclaiming her bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. But marriage in the rest of the human race and the sexual union of man and wife, does not follow as a 'Therefore...' from a literal reading of thoracic surgery and cloning. The writer or editor seems to be giving an allegorical explanation of the rib. Eve being made from Adam rib, being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh is a picture of God's view of marriage. We are to be that close, that united, that one. 'Therefore...' follows if the rib is allegorical, or if literal, is literal with a deep allegorical meaning.

Of course I would think it is very relevant for our understanding of how Jesus handled the Genesis account, that one of the two verses he quote is an editorial allegorical interpretation of what the passage meant. Jesus may have understood Genesis and Adam and Eve literally, we don't know. What we see in this passage is Jesus teaching from the allegorical meaning of the account.

The YEC has no trouble saying that the Jesus is Luke is the writer of Gen. 2:24 and will speak consistently.

Jesus is Luke? I think your reply may have got a bit garbled there. I don't think consistency is an issue here, only the question of how we are to understand God's inspired word.

That being said, "Noah" is better supported -- for the purposes of argument -- as a biblical character.

You have been reading Mimesis

The argument is that Gen. 1 and 2 are in conflict on the sequence? Obviously we have been down that road.

Well the simple reading of the surface text of both account gives two very different sequences of creation, and YECs have to go to a lot of trouble to try to reconcile them. But no, there is no conflict. Any apparent conflict comes from misunderstanding what the texts are about.

Yes we have been down that road, though this issue here is slightly different. You were asking who was the most biblical, who was closer to the most likely reading of the text and who had to read it very loosely. Well on that score the Creationist reading of Gen 2 is far from the plain meaning of the text.

Reps for that.

Thanks

 

[huldah153]

Sexual reproduction came well after the creation of life according to evolution. It doesnt say Adam, but it is not consistent with evolution.

I don't subscribe to the big bang theory, or abiogenesis for that matter; neither of which are synonymous with biological evolution. Sexual reproduction could therefore have existed from the moment of creation.

Now, we all know that you can loosely interpret so that this portion of the Gospel is no problem. However, the question at hand is whether creationism is biblical. Since only creationism is consistent with the most likely reading of the text, as opposed to a very loose reading, creationism would be biblical.

The notion that Cain and Seth married their sisters or cousins, is not just a "very loose" reading of scripture, but a contradiction of God's condemnation of incest.

 

[PETE_]

I don't subscribe to the big bang theory, or abiogenesis for that matter; neither of which are synonymous with biological evolution. Sexual reproduction could therefore have existed from the moment of creation.



The notion that Cain and Seth married their sisters or cousins, is not just a "very loose" reading of scripture, but a contradiction of God's condemnation of incest.

Incest was not condemned until much later

 

[Assyrian]

Neither was murder.

 

[PETE_]

But it was condemned at that time. Incest was not until later

 

[huldah153]

But it was condemned at that time. Incest was not until later

The fact that murder was condemned at that time indicates that God abhorred sins that were not yet prohibited by Mosaic law. Indeed, if Cain's sin had been incest instead of murder, God would have been equally displeased.

If incest were not a sin prior to Leviticus, then why were the Moabites and Ammonites cursed after Lot's daughters had intercourse with their father?

 

[Assyrian]

Or why did Lot's daughter think they had to get him drunk before they could sleep with him? I don't think Genesis had to say this was very very bad. It is told as a story of horror and degradation. This is a theme running through Genesis, a warning of what happens if your children mix with the Canaanites. There may even be a political message there too, you think you cousins the Moabites and Ammonites are cool? This is where they came from. The account in Genesis assumes its readers would react in horror at the idea. Lot's daughters knew he would react in horror too, so they got him drunk and unconscious first.

When Judah got his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar pregnant, why didn't he marry her? Could it be that just as he realised without the ten commandments that her immorality was wrong, he also realised while he had a responsibility to provide another husband for her, an incestuous marriage to her father in law was not it. Genesis make no comment about Reuben's behaviour either. Gen 35:22 While Israel lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine. And Israel heard of it. Does Genesis approve of Reuben's behaviour and Israel's acquiescence? Is it simply neutral, it didn't matter in the slightest because there was no law against it yet? Or do we see in Genesis a people who, even though they did not always live up to it, had a deep moral code long before the law was given to Moses and knew this was wrong?

We see the same awareness of moral code in the Israelites before Moses, as Paul describes in Gentiles who have not heard of the Law of Moses. Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

 

[shernren]

We aren't told that God approved of Cain's incest or the incest of any who came after him. Just because behavior is recorded does not mean it is endorsed.

 

[huldah153]

We aren't told that God approved of Cain's incest or the incest of any who came after him. Just because behavior is recorded does not mean it is endorsed.

That he or anyone else married his sister is not recorded at all; though creationists are suffering from the delusion that it is.

They will perhaps point to Abraham who married his half-sister, but that is entirely incidental.

 

[Assyrian]

Nice one Huldah

There seems to be some question about Abraham's precise relationship with Sarah. Was she Terah's daughter and Abraham's half sister, or Terah's grand daughter, Haran's daughter. Which would make Sarah Abraham's half neice. Abraham did claim she was his sister but he wasn't being very candid at the time.

 

[shernren]

'Tis interesting that in Malay culture wives call their husbands "abang", literally "big brother", fairly often - it isn't too far off from the English "dear". Wonder where they picked that up from.

 

[PETE_]

Marriages between siblings is not condemned before the Law was given and there have already been mention of some in this thread, however relations between parents/children were. Even in Egyptian history sibling marriages were not uncommon.

 

[Assyrian]

Was that Egyptian society in general or just the royal family?

Anyway, what you seem to be saying is that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with incest, and brothers or sisters were free to marry their until God brought the new rule in? So incest wasn't a moral issue, it was just one of the Levitical laws God brought in, like not eating lobster or having clothes of mixed fibres? But those laws don't apply to Christians, we are not under the Levitical law any more. As long as Christians are careful about genetics there shouldn't be any problem brother and sister marrying...

It seems the obvious conclusion from the claim Cain and Seth married their sisters. But then the bible never says Cain and Seth married their sisters or that it was perfectly all right for them to do so.

 

[shernren]

If only you were to me like a brother,
who was nursed at my mother's breasts!
Then, if I found you outside,
I would kiss you,
and no one would despise me. I would lead you
and bring you to my mother's house--
she who has taught me.
I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the nectar of my pomegranates.
(Song of Solomon 8:1-2 NIV)

... "Yeah, I wish we were committing incest." Hmmmm.

 

[marktheblake]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

Unfortunately there are also people who read Genesis as it isn't.

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him.

You are reading Genesis as it isnt. Nowhere does it says he fears people who are unrelated to him. You have simply made that up. Quite obviously the only people he would need to fear is those who knew he killed Abel. That does not have to be restricted to people living at the time, it could include future generations.

He said 'whoever' finds me will kill me. That implication alone suggests that everyone who exists in his lifetime will know that he killed Abel. So that is completely the opposite to your claim that they would be unrelated.

If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of?

You have done it again, where do you get the idea that Adam and Eve were the only other people? This is not stated, so you cannot presume this as a fact.

And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Same place all the other people came from, descendents of Adam.

The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

It doesnt say they had all this children after Seth. It just says that they had other chlildren. You read it wrong. Hebrew writing style usually records matters in order of importance not chronological. Only Seth is mentioned first, because he is in the Messianic line.

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era

Adam could have been 1 yo, we don't know. Perhaps the Jewish tradition holds that it was 30, and Josephus wrote that (as he wrote Adam had about 50 kids) I do not know, however, the scripture doesnt reveal this, so it is not important.

Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child.

You can speculate all you like, but unless you can prove that is the only possibility it is not a fact you can stand on. You can have it as a possibility and make a conjecture, but you have to accept, other conjectures are reasonable too.

This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

your speculation (wishful thinking) doesnt render anything.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom.

I assume you compare to 19:25, No, that is terribly contrived.
the fire of sodom destroyed all that lived in the cities. You highlight "all" and such a word in the Hebrew was not used, nor are the same words used in the two texts.

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

Go for it.

It is quite reasonable to use conjecture to support some 'mysteries' as you might call it. If they are reasonable then there can be no argument against them.

However you cant use conjecture to prove something is false/wrong/contradictory.

Your only way to make convincing argument is rule out every possibility , and you have failed to do that.

 

[huldah153]

Adam could have been 1 yo, we don't know. Perhaps the Jewish tradition holds that it was 30, and Josephus wrote that (as he wrote Adam had about 50 kids) I do not know, however, the scripture doesnt reveal this, so it is not important.

Josephus did actually believe that Cain took along a sister for his wife, but the question remains, was this also the opinion of Moses or whomever authored Genesis, because the plain reading of the text isn't crystal clear.

Admittedly, the Jewish tradition would seem to favor the creationist position.

 

[Van]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

Does the Bible say the only children Adam and Eve had came after Seth?

Genesis 5:4 states that Adam lived 800 years after he became the father of Seth, and that he had sons and daughters. So it is an inference that all the sons and daughters came after Seth. However Cain was a son and he came before Seth. So the inference is unbiblical, and a logical impossibility. Thus the inference "mangles" the actual chronology.

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

Yes, to claim Adam was 30 when Cain was born does not seem to fit. But Cain and Abel seem to be adults, with their own ground and flocks from which to make offerings, and so it is reasonable that Adam fathered kids 20 or more years before Seth was born. Now to make the inference Adam and Eve had no kids during the interval where Cain and Able grew to adulthood and tended flocks or tilled the ground, seems very unlikely. Such an inference "mangles" the chronology.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

Yes it is certainly true that "all" refers to all of the thing or group in view, and does not refer to stuff not in view. And you can also assert that "there was no man to till the ground" somehow only refers to that area.

Bottom line, if it mangles the bible to believe something happened that is not specifically addresses, such as Adam and Eve have kids during the 20 or more years between Cain and Abel's birth and Seth's birth, but it does not mangle the bible to claim other men existed when there was not a man to till the ground, one must admit to a rather convoluted view of scripture.

 

[huldah153]

Does the Bible say the only children Adam and Eve had came after Seth?

No, I said "other" children besides Cain and Abel.

The only evidence that Adam and Eve had any other kids who existed during Abel's life, comes from apocryphal sources.

The Book of Enoch claims that Cain married a sister named Aswan.

The Book of Adam and Eve describes how Cain was jealous that Abel was destined to marry Cain's twin sister, who happened to be prettier than Abel's twin. But after killing Abel, Cain got his way and married his own twin. And later on, Seth would marry Abel's twin.

The Book of Jasher states that Cain and Abel had three sisters prior to Seth's birth.

The Bible, however, is silent on this issue.

 

[Van]

I know it is wishful thinking but why didn't Adam and Eve have lots of children during the 20 or more year period when Cain and Abel were growing up. They were under the command to be fruitful and multiply. So it "mangles" the chronology to assert that Adam and Eve did not have "other" children before Seth was born.