Evidence that Genesis is History and Not Myth - Creation

My mind is closed. The best evidence for Genesis is: Genesis itself. Genesis (and the whole Bible) is about God. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

The argument about whether it's historically accurate is irrelevant and unprovable.

Taodeching said:

Hi all,

As promised in my other thread is a video tha was down some time ago but I listened to it today. In the video Mr. Micheal Jones goes through how Genesis is history but not YEC type things. I thought it a good video to put here for those that are not closed minded.

Here is the video:

Video summary: In this livestream, Michael Jones (from @InspiringPhilosophy) provides an array of evidence for the historical accuracy of Genesis. This evidence will BLOW YOUR MIND.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing

pescador said:

My mind is closed. The best evidence for Genesis is: Genesis itself. Genesis (and the whole Bible) is about God. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

The argument about whether it's historically accurate is irrelevant and unprovable.

Click to expand...

Not according to Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

He in fact said the genesis creation account gets everything in the right scientific order, and it’s what convinced him that the Bible is from God.

For instance, Genesis has been criticized for saying God created light before the sun - yet the BB theory says photons were created before hydrogen formed and long before it coalesced into stars that produce photons from nuclear fusion - thus light (photons) was created before the sun - just as the Genesis account says

chad kincham said:

Not according to Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

He in fact said the genesis creation account gets everything in the right scientific order, and it’s what convinced him that the Bible is from God.

For instance, Genesis has been criticized for saying God created light before the sun - yet the BB theory says photons were created before hydrogen formed and long before it coalesced into stars that produce photons from nuclear fusion - thus light (photons) was created before the sun - just as the Genesis account says

Click to expand...

The Bible does not need science to back it, which is merely mans own efforts to understand things rather than trusting God who tells us what happened. Maybe it will help some people to believe, but believing while it may be a start is not enough.
An intellectual head nod is not faith and not trust. God asks-demands faith and trust not simply belief.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

While someone trying to show how Genesis is historically accurate is nice in one way it also shows a possible dependence on man made facts to prove the Bible rather than dependence on God and trusting him no matter if facts gathered by men back it or not. Man made facts can change, God's word doesn't.
Reaching out to people based on facts is also not what faith is built on, faith comes from God to our spirit not to our intellect.

John 20
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”


28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

It's nice when facts line up with faith but if they are dependent on those facts in any way, than you have built your house upon the sand rather than on the rock. I think its an easy mistake for many people to slip into without even realizing they have built belief based on evidence or facts rather than on faith.

coffee4u said:

The Bible does not need science to back it, which is merely mans own efforts to understand things rather than trusting God who tells us what happened. Maybe it will help some people to believe, but believing while it may be a start is not enough.
An intellectual head nod is not faith and not trust. God asks-demands faith and trust not simply belief.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

While someone trying to show how Genesis is historically accurate is nice in one way it also shows a possible dependence on man made facts to prove the Bible rather than dependence on God and trusting him no matter if facts gathered by men back it or not. Man made facts can change, God's word doesn't.
Reaching out to people based on facts is also not what faith is built on, faith comes from God to our spirit not to our intellect.

John 20
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”


28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

It's nice when facts line up with faith but if they are dependent on those facts in any way, than you have built your house upon the sand rather than on the rock. I think its an easy mistake for many people to slip into without even realizing they have built belief based on evidence or facts rather than on faith.

Click to expand...

Except if you don't rely on science you risk being arong about your understanding of the bible.

loveofourlord said:

Except if you don't rely on science you risk being arong about your understanding of the bible.

Click to expand...

I have no idea of what 'arong' means. If you mean 'wrong'; no, science is wrong.

Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

coffee4u said:

I have no idea of what 'arong' means. If you mean 'wrong'; no, science is wrong.

Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Click to expand...

yes wrong, and no it's not, thats the creationist problem and why no one will ever take them seriously.

loveofourlord said:

yes wrong, and no it's not, thats the creationist problem and why no one will ever take them seriously.

Click to expand...

People are deceived by sciecne so called and this is why nobody takes scripture seriously.
You want to go around in a circle?

If you choose to believe the words of men who were not there and didn't see anything then that's your choice. Mankind would rather believe their own made up narrative then read the word of God and learn the truth.

Exodus 20
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Anyone who spends any time trying to construct a theology based on whether or not Genesis is a literal history has already missed the point of scripture.

loveofourlord said:

Except if you don't rely on science you risk being arong about your understanding of the bible.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to add another typo flame here, but I just realized that when you hit the wrong key spelling "wrong", it becomes self-referential. Well done.

The problem is that the first five books of the Bible or Torah, were not written until
five hundred years after the oral stories had been committed to memory by the
author, many believing it to be Moses, and Jerome believed it was Ezra.

So, the written account had to fit the oral stories that were told to people for
five hundred years.

I tend to go with Teilhard De Chardin's theory. He was a scientists and
believed that biological evolution took place until about ten thousand
years ago. Then the biological evolution slowed way down. However,
spiritual and intellectual evolution continued and still continues today.

JimR-OCDS said:

I tend to go with Teilhard De Chardin's theory.

Click to expand...

In 1962, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned several of Teilhard's works based on their alleged ambiguities and doctrinal errors. Some eminent Catholic figures, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, have made positive comments on some of his ideas since. The response to his writings by scientists has been mostly critical.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia

Father De Chardin's reputation in the Church is somewhat rehabilitated, but his idea of a teleological process in evolution probably puts him more in the camp of intelligent design than a strict Darwinian. Nevertheless, he did consider himself a Darwinian. I think he'd agree most with Michael Denton, who sees nature as a teleological process in itself.

The Barbarian said:

In 1962, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned several of Teilhard's works based on their alleged ambiguities and doctrinal errors. Some eminent Catholic figures, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, have made positive comments on some of his ideas since. The response to his writings by scientists has been mostly critical.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia

Father De Chardin's reputation in the Church is somewhat rehabilitated, but his idea of a teleological process in evolution probably puts him more in the camp of intelligent design than a strict Darwinian. Nevertheless, he did consider himself a Darwinian. I think he'd agree most with Michael Denton, who sees nature as a teleological process in itself.

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember the controversy, but today Teilhard De Chardin work is well respected, except
among Catholic Fundamentalist who still attack him.

BTW, you should've seen the melt downs among Fundamentalist Catholics when the name Thomas Merton or Centering Prayer came up in CAF.

JimR-OCDS said:

BTW, you should've seen the melt downs among Fundamentalist Catholics when the name Thomas Merton or Centering Prayer came up in CAF.

Click to expand...

I know such a person. It was interesting that he was very unhappy and I was very happy to hear our new Pope had chosen "Francis" for his papal name.

For the very same reason.

The Barbarian said:

I know such a person. It was interesting that he was very unhappy and I was very happy to hear our new Pope had chosen "Francis" for his papal name.

For the very same reason.

Click to expand...

I play at Catholic.com and many so-called "traditionalists," do not like Pope Francis
and I'm constantly correcting the misinformation they use in their attacks..

JimR-OCDS said:

I play at Catholic.com and many so-called "traditionalists," do not like Pope Francis
and I'm constantly correcting the misinformation they use in their attacks..

Click to expand...

They still have a forum there? It go so rowdy, years ago, that many thoughtful Catholics gave up and left.

The Barbarian said:

They still have a forum there? It go so rowdy, years ago, that many thoughtful Catholics gave up and left.

Click to expand...

It picked up when CAF shut down their forums.

Still not too busy, but more civil than CAF was.

What the world needs now, is a pastor. And St. Francis was the model of applied Christianity; I am pleased that Pope Francis is following in the Christ-centered tradition of St. Francis.