Any Hypothesis or Experiment Ideas to test for Creationism

[Calminian]

In contrast, Christian faith, is not faith in faith. It is faith in God's written record that He has provided to explain the origin of the universe and of mankind (the Bible)....

Amen! Faith is only as effective in whom it is placed.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

That's fine, and you're entitled to this line of questioning. My point, however, is that if the writers of Genesis weren't interesting in the same "ultimate" thing that you're "after", then you're probably not going to find the answers you are looking for from them. So until you can establish that their assumptions about history and their motivations in writing Genesis correspond directly with your assumptions about the criteria for determining whether the writing relates in a modernist's "historical" way to the events that transpired, you may have a fruitless search ahead of you.

Okay with all that said, can you tell me the original writers view? I get the feeling that ultimately, it doesn't matter in the long run because we can obviously get meaning out of Genesis in spite of it being literal or not. I can see from some of the things you say below, which I'll respond to, I get the general feeling that you're saying the people just got the message of Genesis. That being seperated from God is not a good thing.

If you are saying that is how they understood Genesis, it doesn't matter if I'm looking at it in a modernist view concerning history. There is definitely a message in Genesis. However, I argue if Adam and Eve didn't literally exist, and Genesis is as much mythically true as every other ANE myth, where does that leave Christianity? This would mean Christianity is built upon something that is as much true as every other religion in the world. That makes Christianity just as true as any other religion in the world.

Again, it depends on "how it's written." Until you can establish the motivations and intentions behind how it was written, you'll never get to the phenomenological conclusion you're after. After all, if this is mythos, the event (from a modernist POV) may have not "happened", but to the writers of the Scriptures, it may have "happened". Ultimately, you will need to reconcile yourself to the fact that the ancient writers of the Scriptures don't think about the world, history, or even God in the same way that you do.

So again it doesn't matter what my moderist view is, I acknowledge very much there's a message in Genesis, whether it literally happened or not. Yet it's very important to know if it literally happened. If it didn't, Christianity is based on something that is as reliable as every other creation myth in the world.

I would argue that you are making a terrible mistake in making this argument. Not only is this argument without historical precedent, it is also entirely incapable of substantiation.

You mentioned some posts back, that Genesis should be understood as a myth. Reasoning that Genesis was similar to all the ANE myths around that time. If we are to argue that Genesis shouldn't be seen in a modernist view in terms of history, then it's safe to say Genesis is nothing more than another creation story just like all the others in that time. Scholars even argue that the authors of Genesis took parts of the story from other creation stories. (Such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) So why should I believe Genesis is different from other stories? Why should I believe God was involved in these scriptures? The only way to set it apart from other myths, is to prove it historically. That Adam and Eve existed, and they disobeyed God.

That's your opinion, of course. Personally, I find what scientists tell us about the history of the earth to be entirely in keeping with who God is.

So God created death and suffering, all before there was a "disconnection" between God and man? How do you explain that disconnection anyway, if Adam and Eve didn't exist?

There is nothing "wrong" or "broken" with the cessation of biological processes within a finite universe. Death is a requisite for life, as the very biological makeup of who we are as embodied persons is predicated upon cells dying, new cells replacing them, multiplying, dying, and on and on.

The "brokeness" in the world, therefore, is not the physical phenomenon which occur, but rather humanity's broken relationship toward God, creation, and self. We see within creation violence and pain and fear because we have detached ourselves from the life God in our rebellion. Therefore, even in the goodness of God's creation, we find horror and terror because these perfectly natural occurrences remind us of our alienation from the life of God and the doom which awaits us as we drift farther and farther into death and unbecoming.

So again, how do you explain the relationship between man and God became broken? And the results of that disconnection would be even harder to explain if the history scientists present is true. I gather you are saying there wasn't any real physical result to our broken relationship with God, but only spiritual. That's all fine and good, however if that is the case, if our relationship with God was never broken, we would still see tragedy in this world. So even with God involved, people would still die horrific deaths, be abused in every way imaginable, so on and so forth. That just doesn't make sense.


Now if you're saying those tragedies didn't happen when we had relationship with God, you are semi arguing for why Genesis must be literal in it's history, from a modern view point. So you can't have millions of years of death and common descent, and God at the same time. Only one can be true.

False premise. First of all, you have yet to define how one is to actually determine whether "these events" did or didn't happen. Second, by making this claim, you have ultimately declared that the modernist/scientific viewpoint is the ultimate arbiter of truth, that even the Scriptures (which you claim "must be correct" in its relation to science) are subject to them.

I could not disagree more. The Scriptures are a part of the cornerstone of Christian faith and life, not because they are scientifically and historically accurate (however these are defined...), but because they are within the historical tradition and practice of the Church, all the way to the very beginning. Christians should not need to defend the Scriptures against scientific/historical methodology, for the Scriptures are not cut from the same cloth as that to which these methods would be applied.

However, when naive Christians feel threatened by these methodologies and go out of their way to illegitimately subject the Scriptures to this scrutiny, it creates nothing but harm. Yes, it may be done with good intentions; but it is not done in a thoughtful way and betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Scriptures and the place which they occupy within the historical tradition and practice of the Christian church.

All we should care about is if what we believe is literal. I very well know that science is limited to our observation. That's why even though it disagrees with Genesis being historical, I believe there is an observation that we can't see. Christianity is built on a literal Genesis. If Genesis isn't literal and is as good as any other creation myth, who's to say Christianity isn't literal as well? Who's to say Jesus is who He said He was, and also remember that the only information as to what Jesus did and said are in Paul's letters and the Gospels. Information that was written 20+ years after Jesus was on the earth. (And scholars believe the Gospels were written after 70 AD/CE. I disagree) So what's written in the OT is key in determining if Jesus is truly who it is said of Him. That's why I say if Genesis is not literal, Christianity probably isn't literal either.

The verse you are talking about, the lion and the lamb, are from Isaiah not the NT, though still scripture. I don't see how this has anything to do with our interpretation of Genesis since they are prophetic passages describing the future not a description of the past or Eden. Interestingly, these descriptions of lion, wolf, ox and lamb is in a section that describe the Messiah growing out of a tree stump. You are trying to use a metaphorical passage to argue that Genesis must be literal.

If God desired peace, it's not a stretch to say He also created the world with peace originally. Paul said that death was the final enemy to be put under Jesus feet. God sees death as an enemy. Yet if God created us to die, which is what we have to believe if common descent is true, that is utterly contradictory. You can't have common descent history and God be true at the same time.

 

[truthinapologetics]

Amen! Faith is only as effective in whom it is placed.

Yes, but the quote you "amen'ed" said that Christian faith is in the Scriptures, which is false. Christian faith is in the person of Christ. To say that Christian faith is faith in the Scriptures is idolatry.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, but the quote you "amen'ed" said that Christian faith is in the Scriptures, which is false. Christian faith is in the person of Christ. To say that Christian faith is faith in the Scriptures is idolatry.

No it's not false, for the scriptures contain the word of God. We place our faith is Christ, yes, but specifically what God's Word says about Christ. We don't just trust any Christ, but the Biblical Christ.

2Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid that qas the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts rwill be led astray from a ssincere and tpure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and uproclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept va different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.​

Just about every religion in the world accepts Christ in some form, but those false christs cannot save. Only the word of God reveals the true Christ, and thus it is in it we must trust.

 

[truthinapologetics]

Okay with all that said, can you tell me the original writers view? I get the feeling that ultimately, it doesn't matter in the long run because we can obviously get meaning out of Genesis in spite of it being literal or not. I can see from some of the things you say below, which I'll respond to, I get the general feeling that you're saying the people just got the message of Genesis. That being seperated from God is not a good thing.

The theological explanation of humanity's alienation from God is certainly a part of the message, yes. But there's more going on, I think. If you examine the ANE literature of the same time period, you'll find a number of creation myths, flood stories, king's lists, etc., many which share very similar aspect and content with the narratives in Genesis. What is interesting about the creation myth in Genesis in particular, is the theological reinterpretation that is accomplished.

So if you look at it like this, the people of Israel would have been surrounded by nations that, like them, had common creation myths (and other narratives) that shaped their worldviews. Since oral histories/narratives would have been the primary means of communication of ideas, it's quite likely that the ancient Israelites would have been intimately familiar with the creation stories common to their day. So then, you can begin to see how incredibly important a reinterpretation and retelling of these shared creation stories would have been, but from the perspective of Yahweh, not the panetheon of gods of other peoples. You can begin to imagine how the theological truths that the people believed would have transformed these stories into the beautiful story of God's providential creation and care of the universe, and the special place which the Genesis account attributes to humanity in relationship to God.

From the modern mind's perspective, we get tripped up on the "happened-ness" of story, of history. We have a prejudice to historicity, thinking that the value and meaningfulness of a story is ultimately terminated in the "fact" of it. However, try to think of yourself in the shoes of the ancients. You are shaped and molded in your worldview by the stories that are told; these are literally how knowledge and experience and truth and faith and meaning are passed from generation to generation. In such an intimate relationship with story, is the "happened-ness" really the most important part? Or is your relationship to and place within that story more important? I would argue that for the people for whom Genesis was written, the latter is closer to the reality.

However, I argue if Adam and Eve didn't literally exist, and Genesis is as much mythically true as every other ANE myth, where does that leave Christianity? This would mean Christianity is built upon something that is as much true as every other religion in the world. That makes Christianity just as true as any other religion in the world.

I would say it doesn't change Christianity whatsoever. There is nothing within the tenants of faith that somehow "require" (or even presume, for that matter) a particular philosophical interpretation of Genesis. Christianity is not "built upon" Genesis; the beautiful story of Genesis is certainly a part of Christianity, but I would argue that the historicity of it is not; and I would particularly reject the notion that the historicity of it is something that should even be a matter of debate.

So again it doesn't matter what my moderist view is, I acknowledge very much there's a message in Genesis, whether it literally happened or not. Yet it's very important to know if it literally happened. If it didn't, Christianity is based on something that is as reliable as every other creation myth in the world.

I think you are making too much of the place of Genesis, as literature, within the grand arc of what-is Christianity. But even if Christianity is somehow "based" on Genesis, what are you going to do? As we've already discussed, there's no way that you can absolutely verify your quest either way. If you must have verification, I must sadly tell you that you have much frustration and disappointment ahead.

You mentioned some posts back, that Genesis should be understood as a myth. Reasoning that Genesis was similar to all the ANE myths around that time. If we are to argue that Genesis shouldn't be seen in a modernist view in terms of history, then it's safe to say Genesis is nothing more than another creation story just like all the others in that time.

But don't you see the modernist prejudice in this conclusion? "Nothing more than another creation story"? Why does Genesis have to be historically verified in order to be "more" than "another story"? What is the deficiency in "story" that is fulfilled in historicity? You feel this way because you have been indoctrinated through modern philosophy to valuate "story" and "history" in such a bifurcated way. But can you explain why this evaluation is valid?

Scholars even argue that the authors of Genesis took parts of the story from other creation stories. (Such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) So why should I believe Genesis is different from other stories? Why should I believe God was involved in these scriptures? The only way to set it apart from other myths, is to prove it historically. That Adam and Eve existed, and they disobeyed God.

You realize, don't you, that you're setting up a false standard? You want Genesis to be of divine origin (and I'm not denying that it is, btw). But you propose to establish this "otherly-ness" on the basis of historical verification. However, historical verification can ONLY establish the facts of particular historical occurrences (and I use "facts" in the loosest way possible); historical verification will NEVER establish the divine origin which you suppose for Genesis, for historical investigation can only operate within the domain of that which is of the universe...e.g., not the supernatural.

So even if you somehow verify that Adam and Eve existed in the way that your philosophical prejudices demand that they existed, you will be 0% closer to establishing the claims about anything related to the supernatural origin of the Genesis account, the creation of the universe, etc.

So God created death and suffering, all before there was a "disconnection" between God and man? How do you explain that disconnection anyway, if Adam and Eve didn't exist?

Death is a requisite for life. Suffering is a subjective evaluation of sensory input, which I would argue is a result of humanity's alienation from God.

I explain the disconnection by looking at myself. I started off as a perfectly sweet and innocent child, and grew into a man full of pride and violence who lived at enmity with God and neighbor alike.

So again, how do you explain the relationship between man and God became broken?

See above.

And the results of that disconnection would be even harder to explain if the history scientists present is true.

Not really. The story of the fall--whether it "happened" in the way you think it happened or not--is played out everyday over and over again. There is no need for a primordial Fall, given that the same occurs within each of us.

I gather you are saying there wasn't any real physical result to our broken relationship with God, but only spiritual. That's all fine and good, however if that is the case, if our relationship with God was never broken, we would still see tragedy in this world. So even with God involved, people would still die horrific deaths, be abused in every way imaginable, so on and so forth. That just doesn't make sense.

I don't agree. While death and decay would certainly continue to be a part of life, I don't think we would see them as tragedies. We evaluate the phenomenology of death as "tragedy" and "horror" and "suffering" because our relationship is broken with God. If we lived in union with God, seeing the world as God sees it, we would see the beauty of life and death as God does, and would accept with gladness and praise our place within it, knowing as God does that it is "good". However, because we have lost the knowledge of God and have been severed from the life of God, the natural course of the "good" world that God created becomes a curse to us, a constant reminder of our hastening rush toward death and unbecoming. Cut off from God, we experience suffering because the self-will within us bristles against the thought of, one the one hand, dependence upon the life of God and, on the other, the extinguishing of one's own life.

Now if you're saying those tragedies didn't happen when we had relationship with God, you are semi arguing for why Genesis must be literal in it's history, from a modern view point. So you can't have millions of years of death and common descent, and God at the same time. Only one can be true.

I whole-heartedly disagree. See above.

All we should care about is if what we believe is literal.

Why?

I very well know that science is limited to our observation. That's why even though it disagrees with Genesis being historical, I believe there is an observation that we can't see. Christianity is built on a literal Genesis.

Please demonstrate how this is the case. I have literally never heard anyone else ever make this claim.

If Genesis isn't literal and is as good as any other creation myth, who's to say Christianity isn't literal as well? Who's to say Jesus is who He said He was, and also remember that the only information as to what Jesus did and said are in Paul's letters and the Gospels. Information that was written 20+ years after Jesus was on the earth. (And scholars believe the Gospels were written after 70 AD/CE. I disagree) So what's written in the OT is key in determining if Jesus is truly who it is said of Him. That's why I say if Genesis is not literal, Christianity probably isn't literal either.

If you wish to ignore all the genre-specific caveats that would clarify why such a hard-line is absurd, that's your choice. However, I simply think throwing everything out because you don't want to entertain the notion of a non-literal (again, whatever this ACTUALLY means) Genesis is a bit absurd; there's simply no reason for such a conclusion.

If God desired peace, it's not a stretch to say He also created the world with peace originally. Paul said that death was the final enemy to be put under Jesus feet. God sees death as an enemy. Yet if God created us to die, which is what we have to believe if common descent is true, that is utterly contradictory. You can't have common descent history and God be true at the same time.

I'll point you back to my comments above. I think death is transformed into a curse by the rebellion of humanity. If such is the case (and I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made for this conclusion), there is no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[Assyrian]

If God desired peace, it's not a stretch to say He also created the world with peace originally.

This is simply ascribing motivations to God for creating the world the way you think he created it. It might have some validity (as far as we can understand the thoughts of God), if God actually created the world that way. But if God didn't created the world that way, then your attempt at understanding a mistaken view of creation has no bearing on the question at all. It is simply what you think you would have done if you were God. It doesn't say anything about what God actually did or why.

God's plan, from before the foundation of the world, was to bring peace and reconciliation through Christ's death on the cross. If Christ's death was God's plan before he created the world, I don't see the problem in God creating a world where this is possible.

Remember what Jesus said? John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. The world you would have created would have been peaceful, but without the possibility of this love.

Paul said that death was the final enemy to be put under Jesus feet. God sees death as an enemy. Yet if God created us to die, which is what we have to believe if common descent is true, that is utterly contradictory. You can't have common descent history and God be true at the same time.

Again you are taking a verse that describes present situation, death being God's enemy, and a future event, this enemy being destroyed. It does not describe the creation in the past. If you read down the chapter, you will see that the problem with death is something that only came when mankind sinned.
1Cor 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Of course you believe death came after sin and as the result of sin, but the question we are looking at is whether there is a problem if death existed the fall. Death since the fall is a death with the sting of sin and is God's enemy. Since this death is spiritually very different from any death before the fall, there is no reason to think death before the fall, before sin, would have been God's enemy too.

 

[Papias]

(from post #24)

Lantern wrote:

I don't accept the omphalos hypothesis. There's no question that God made things mature, but as far as it concern dating methods and distant star light, no. Of course my ideas are a little in depth. I'll post them all shortly in this thread and in the other one I made, so we can go into deeper discussion.

OK. I reject it as well, and so we can have a rational discussion.

As for the other things you mentioned, I'm holding out for now. .....So there's more research to be done, with the knowledge we have today.

But that's the point - you don't seem to be aware of the huge amount of work (research) that has already been done to show whether or not these things* actually happened. It wasn't just 100 hours of work, nor just 100000 hours, but literally lifetimes of people, working until death or retirement on this stuff. Not just a few lifetimes of work either, but literally millions of lifetimes. In fact, it's hard to think of things that haven't already been researched.

*= a global flood, a 6 day creation 10K years ago, and the exodus

(post about the many dating methods)

I hear you, but I still want to look into these things for myself,

Please do. You can start with a University degree in a relevant area (like geology, palenontology, biology, genetics, etc.).

However, do you realize that to look over anything more than 0.001% of the evidence, you would have to be able to live to be hundreds of years old, and do nothing else?

of course while reviewing what scientists say on the matter.

Yes. There is a treasure trove of information there. Facinating stuff!

Yet the biggest thing is if these events didn't happen, Christianity falls apart altogether. The Bible is not a science book, but it must be correct on it's points concerning origins and history.

Have you read Luke chapter 10 (the good samaritan)? Does it matter whether or not there actually was a samaritan who did exactly what the story says? Of course not. Note that Jesus never says "this is a story that may not have actually happened". No, he just tells the story so it can inform us of the message God is telling us. Whether or not it actually happened isn't relevant.

If the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc didn't actually happen (another example is the sun standing still in Joshua, etc), then Christianity is fine - just as fine as it was after Jesus told the Good Samaritan story.

If that weren't the case, then Christianity would not exist - because mountains of evidence have already shown that the events above didn't actually happen. That's why it's important to look at things like genre.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

I think a mistake is made by scientists looking for evidence of a world wide flood when they should be looking for evidence of a world wide flood aftermath

Dear Tas, The only evidence of the Flood, which destroyed the first Earth, is probably in Lake Van in the mountains of Ararat. Gopherwood is not native to this Earth and is the only aftermath of the Global Flood which did NOT destroy our Earth, but Adam's world was clean dissolved in the Flood. Isaiah 24:19

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

LoL Good one

The Colorado river running along the bottom of the Grand Canyon is the giveaway.

 

[TasManOfGod]

The Colorado river running along the bottom of the Grand Canyon is the giveaway.

Yer sure. If that is how you want to believe. I'm sticking with the big flood idea

 

[Assyrian]

Yer sure. If that is how you want to believe. I'm sticking with the big flood idea

You are free to believe whatever you like, but your original point was about scientists looking for evidence for the flood. The evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, and the scientists studying the canyon go with the evidence rather than wishful thinking.

 

[TasManOfGod]

You are free to believe whatever you like, but your original point was about scientists looking for evidence for the flood. The evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, and the scientists studying the canyon go with the evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Actually I hear that scientist have given up on trying to maintain the myth that the little river caused the massive erosion and now think it may well have been a flood. Well what do you know A flood -who'd of thought it

 

[Smidlee]

All we should care about is if what we believe is literal. I very well know that science is limited to our observation. That's why even though it disagrees with Genesis being historical, I believe there is an observation that we can't see. Christianity is built on a literal Genesis. If Genesis isn't literal and is as good as any other creation myth, who's to say Christianity isn't literal as well? Who's to say Jesus is who He said He was, and also remember that the only information as to what Jesus did and said are in Paul's letters and the Gospels. Information that was written 20+ years after Jesus was on the earth. (And scholars believe the Gospels were written after 70 AD/CE. I disagree) So what's written in the OT is key in determining if Jesus is truly who it is said of Him. That's why I say if Genesis is not literal, Christianity probably isn't literal either.

I think you made some very good points. If you ever watch the Matrix movie then you get the picture the "virtual world" was created by the codes outside of the "program". Genesis does mention God spoke the world into existence. The more we learn about our universe the more we learn we live in the universe of information. So much so we wouldn't know if we were hooked up to a computer as in Matrix or not. (the idea behind the movie)
If God did create the universe (spoke it into existence just as man type up his virtual worlds or writes a book) then it stands to reason those in the world will have very little access to that which the world was created by. In Matrix once he could "see" the code in the virtual world he became like a god. Jesus could easily change water into wine and walk on water just as man changing the code to his video game.

This is why I feel scientist can't come up with a theory of everything because there isn't one. You can take the blue pill which you think the natural world is all there is or the red pill to learn there is a greater reality than the physical which is required to understand origins.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

The theological explanation of humanity's alienation from God is certainly a part of the message, yes. But there's more going on, I think. If you examine the ANE literature of the same time period, you'll find a number of creation myths, flood stories, king's lists, etc., many which share very similar aspect and content with the narratives in Genesis. What is interesting about the creation myth in Genesis in particular, is the theological reinterpretation that is accomplished.

So if you look at it like this, the people of Israel would have been surrounded by nations that, like them, had common creation myths (and other narratives) that shaped their worldviews. Since oral histories/narratives would have been the primary means of communication of ideas, it's quite likely that the ancient Israelites would have been intimately familiar with the creation stories common to their day. So then, you can begin to see how incredibly important a reinterpretation and retelling of these shared creation stories would have been, but from the perspective of Yahweh, not the panetheon of gods of other peoples. You can begin to imagine how the theological truths that the people believed would have transformed these stories into the beautiful story of God's providential creation and care of the universe, and the special place which the Genesis account attributes to humanity in relationship to God.

From the modern mind's perspective, we get tripped up on the "happened-ness" of story, of history. We have a prejudice to historicity, thinking that the value and meaningfulness of a story is ultimately terminated in the "fact" of it. However, try to think of yourself in the shoes of the ancients. You are shaped and molded in your worldview by the stories that are told; these are literally how knowledge and experience and truth and faith and meaning are passed from generation to generation. In such an intimate relationship with story, is the "happened-ness" really the most important part? Or is your relationship to and place within that story more important? I would argue that for the people for whom Genesis was written, the latter is closer to the reality.

I understand what you're saying, however there's more to the Genesis account than this. I believe if the origin of the Israelites was simply a people coming together from other nations, and they passed down oral traditions to ultimately becoming a nation, I would agree with your reasoning. However, if the origin of the Israelites is as explained in the Exodus (Remember from Abraham on, the Bible has the mention of certain sites as "being there until this day". So from Abraham on, the people very much see the events as literal history), there's reason to believe that Genesis is meant to be taken as history. That God created a world without death thousands of years ago, and Adam and Eve were the first humans. Why?

Simply put the story in Genesis wouldn't have descended from the spread of other creation myths, but from the detail that God gave to Moses. I'm not saying either that Moses wrote Genesis, but Genesis ultimately descend from the information Moses was given by God.

Also, if we are to say Genesis is written as a myth (meaning it doesn't require for it to be factually true) and the NT Gospels to be written as history (requiring it to be factually true), then the NT definitely presents Genesis as factually true. Just from the line of descent in Jesus' geneaology. So right there, if Adam didn't exist factually, Jesus didn't exist factually either. And if Genesis didn't factually happen, there's no reason to be a Christian.

I would say it doesn't change Christianity whatsoever. There is nothing within the tenants of faith that somehow "require" (or even presume, for that matter) a particular philosophical interpretation of Genesis. Christianity is not "built upon" Genesis; the beautiful story of Genesis is certainly a part of Christianity, but I would argue that the historicity of it is not; and I would particularly reject the notion that the historicity of it is something that should even be a matter of debate.

So with what I said above, it shows why Genesis must be factually true, in order for Christianity to be factually true. I assume we both consider Jesus to have literally died for our sins thousands of years ago. In the same manner, Adam was a historical person who's actions brought death into the world.

I think you are making too much of the place of Genesis, as literature, within the grand arc of what-is Christianity. But even if Christianity is somehow "based" on Genesis, what are you going to do? As we've already discussed, there's no way that you can absolutely verify your quest either way. If you must have verification, I must sadly tell you that you have much frustration and disappointment ahead.

I believe that is where you're wrong. Genesis can be verified, or proven completely false. Even the creation part, I believe can be verified as well. That evidence can be gathered that would conclude if God created the universe or not. This is done from combining the account with scientific inquiry. In Daniel it is written that knowledge would increase. With the introduction of scientific stuy, our knowledge increases everyday. With this knowledge, we can take a better look at what Genesis is saying, and finally prove it true or false. (From where I'm coming from with this. Science as we know it right now, does suggest Genesis is not factual. However, not yet. Genesis says more than the storybook picture most get from traditional thought)

But don't you see the modernist prejudice in this conclusion? "Nothing more than another creation story"? Why does Genesis have to be historically verified in order to be "more" than "another story"? What is the deficiency in "story" that is fulfilled in historicity? You feel this way because you have been indoctrinated through modern philosophy to valuate "story" and "history" in such a bifurcated way. But can you explain why this evaluation is valid?

It's valid because if it's not historical, Genesis truly is another creation story. If it's not historical, why should we think it's from God? Surely God could provide information about our origins. If He can speak on future events, certainly He can speak on events already past. This would officially be evidence that God is involved with this story. I do have to be honest here, because the message of Genesis is truly unique to any other creation story. Genesis is the only story that says we are created in God's image. Every other culture would probably say that is straight up blasphemous. Also Genesis pretty much states God created ex-nihilo, He created from His own power and choice to create. I haven't come across other stories that suggests things like that. (Though there could be ones out there like that)

So the message is unique, but it has to be proven factually true or else Christianity is not factually true either.

You realize, don't you, that you're setting up a false standard? You want Genesis to be of divine origin (and I'm not denying that it is, btw). But you propose to establish this "otherly-ness" on the basis of historical verification. However, historical verification can ONLY establish the facts of particular historical occurrences (and I use "facts" in the loosest way possible); historical verification will NEVER establish the divine origin which you suppose for Genesis, for historical investigation can only operate within the domain of that which is of the universe...e.g., not the supernatural.

So even if you somehow verify that Adam and Eve existed in the way that your philosophical prejudices demand that they existed, you will be 0% closer to establishing the claims about anything related to the supernatural origin of the Genesis account, the creation of the universe, etc.

I disagree. Remember that the world and universe God created, would have been supernatural in itself if you ask us. Think about it. There was no death, there was a different system of precipitation, and probably the knowledge of Adam and Eve was off the charts. Death affected creation, and so the processes changed. All we have to do is work backwards in a way, find details that didn't change so drastically from that time. One area is deep space. Another area might be on the deep ocean floor, where no sunlight reach that far. Then examine everything in between from there. If Genesis verified, it would verify the one who gave the inspiration for the account. It's the logical conclusion.

Death is a requisite for life. Suffering is a subjective evaluation of sensory input, which I would argue is a result of humanity's alienation from God.

I explain the disconnection by looking at myself. I started off as a perfectly sweet and innocent child, and grew into a man full of pride and violence who lived at enmity with God and neighbor alike.

Death isn't a requisite for life, or else eternal life wouldn't make sense. The processes that go on now, is how life evolved after death came in.

I don't agree. While death and decay would certainly continue to be a part of life, I don't think we would see them as tragedies. We evaluate the phenomenology of death as "tragedy" and "horror" and "suffering" because our relationship is broken with God. If we lived in union with God, seeing the world as God sees it, we would see the beauty of life and death as God does, and would accept with gladness and praise our place within it, knowing as God does that it is "good". However, because we have lost the knowledge of God and have been severed from the life of God, the natural course of the "good" world that God created becomes a curse to us, a constant reminder of our hastening rush toward death and unbecoming. Cut off from God, we experience suffering because the self-will within us bristles against the thought of, one the one hand, dependence upon the life of God and, on the other, the extinguishing of one's own life.

Just so I understand where you're coming from, are you saying even if we never lost that connection to God, we would still have things like disease on the earth? That even if God was with us, people would still be born with deformities and have painful traits like sickle cell anemia, and would see those things as "very good"?

Why?

Because these things are factually linked to what we believe. If they are not factual, what we believe is not factual.

I'll point you back to my comments above. I think death is transformed into a curse by the rebellion of humanity. If such is the case (and I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made for this conclusion), there is no contradiction whatsoever.

And again, just so we are on the same page, if our relationship with God was never broken, would we see aids and other immune system attacking diseases as a good thing?

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

This is simply ascribing motivations to God for creating the world the way you think he created it. It might have some validity (as far as we can understand the thoughts of God), if God actually created the world that way. But if God didn't created the world that way, then your attempt at understanding a mistaken view of creation has no bearing on the question at all. It is simply what you think you would have done if you were God. It doesn't say anything about what God actually did or why.

God's plan, from before the foundation of the world, was to bring peace and reconciliation through Christ's death on the cross. If Christ's death was God's plan before he created the world, I don't see the problem in God creating a world where this is possible.

Remember what Jesus said? John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. The world you would have created would have been peaceful, but without the possibility of this love.

God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus was meant to die for this to happen. If you look at Revelation 13:8, it says Jesus was slain "from" the foundation of the world. So from these verses, God's plan wasn't for Jesus to die necessarily, but for us to be in Him or to be one with Him. There's a lot to discuss here, but it's certain that God had a plan for Adam and Eve. Their mishap delayed that plan for a bit, and that's why Jesus came to die. Before hand, we were going to become one with God through obedience. Perhaps by eating from the Tree of Life.

Again you are taking a verse that describes present situation, death being God's enemy, and a future event, this enemy being destroyed. It does not describe the creation in the past. If you read down the chapter, you will see that the problem with death is something that only came when mankind sinned.
1Cor 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Of course you believe death came after sin and as the result of sin, but the question we are looking at is whether there is a problem if death existed the fall. Death since the fall is a death with the sting of sin and is God's enemy. Since this death is spiritually very different from any death before the fall, there is no reason to think death before the fall, before sin, would have been God's enemy too.

I think death is death through and through. Falling down dead and your body ceasing it's operation, is a result of death overall. What death truly means is, being cut off from God. Since everything involving life comes from God, death is the only thing outside of God. It doesn't make since for Adam to be in full blown relationship with God, and yet he is diseased ridden and in severe pain. If this is the case, why should we expect to be healthy in Heaven? What if God decided while we are in Heaven or in the perfect age, that He wants us diseased ridden again? It's clear from Scripture those things are opposed to who God is. It's not a stretch to say He originally created the world without death, and it was our free will action that brought the process in.

(from post #24)


But that's the point - you don't seem to be aware of the huge amount of work (research) that has already been done to show whether or not these things* actually happened. It wasn't just 100 hours of work, nor just 100000 hours, but literally lifetimes of people, working until death or retirement on this stuff. Not just a few lifetimes of work either, but literally millions of lifetimes. In fact, it's hard to think of things that haven't already been researched.

*= a global flood, a 6 day creation 10K years ago, and the exodus

(post about the many dating methods)

That's just it for me. I believe people (Christians) had the wrong idea concerning what Genesis was saying. For one, Genesis is not a science book. Christian geologists and so forth in the 1800s, approached this thing that the Bible was dishing out science. And they looked to verify those points. Once they found those points weren't correct scientifically, they no longer examined the account as factual in any area thereafter. Yet I approach this thing from Genesis being historical and not scientific. It's hard to fully explain for now, but to put it basically, I have a new research technique concerning this.


I'm not throwing out what they researched, I'm just interested in seeing if there is something more to know here. With Genesis being an origin account, there could be key pieces that we don't observe today that is throwing us off with our current understanding of history. So that's how I'm approaching this.

Have you read Luke chapter 10 (the good samaritan)? Does it matter whether or not there actually was a samaritan who did exactly what the story says? Of course not. Note that Jesus never says "this is a story that may not have actually happened". No, he just tells the story so it can inform us of the message God is telling us. Whether or not it actually happened isn't relevant.

If the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc didn't actually happen (another example is the sun standing still in Joshua, etc), then Christianity is fine - just as fine as it was after Jesus told the Good Samaritan story.

Like I mentioned in my posts above, the NT presents Genesis as historical. Jesus' line of descent goes all the way back to Adam, and there are mentions throughout Paul's letters and some of the others that when put together, presents Genesis as historical.

If that weren't the case, then Christianity would not exist - because mountains of evidence have already shown that the events above didn't actually happen. That's why it's important to look at things like genre.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Yes, Christianity wouldn't exist or otherwise be true.

I think you made some very good points. If you ever watch the Matrix movie then you get the picture the "virtual world" was created by the codes outside of the "program". Genesis does mention God spoke the world into existence. The more we learn about our universe the more we learn we live in the universe of information. So much so we wouldn't know if we were hooked up to a computer as in Matrix or not. (the idea behind the movie)
If God did create the universe (spoke it into existence just as man type up his virtual worlds or writes a book) then it stands to reason those in the world will have very little access to that which the world was created by. In Matrix once he could "see" the code in the virtual world he became like a god. Jesus could easily change water into wine and walk on water just as man changing the code to his video game.

This is why I feel scientist can't come up with a theory of everything because there isn't one. You can take the blue pill which you think the natural world is all there is or the red pill to learn there is a greater reality than the physical which is required to understand origins.

I hear what you're saying. I believe the only way we would ultimately know the origins of the universe, is if we were created. Other than that, why should we even hope to have a complete understanding of our origins? I think this bit of mine is pretty sound logic, even from an atheistic standpoint.

 

[truthinapologetics]

I understand what you're saying, however there's more to the Genesis account than this. I believe if the origin of the Israelites was simply a people coming together from other nations, and they passed down oral traditions to ultimately becoming a nation, I would agree with your reasoning. However, if the origin of the Israelites is as explained in the Exodus (Remember from Abraham on, the Bible has the mention of certain sites as "being there until this day". So from Abraham on, the people very much see the events as literal history), there's reason to believe that Genesis is meant to be taken as history. That God created a world without death thousands of years ago, and Adam and Eve were the first humans. Why?

But again, you're importing categories onto the text, reflecting modern assumptions and prejudices about the valuation of "history". Saying that Genesis is mythological (or parts of it at least...more than likely, it was written over many years, with parts added for particular religio/political reasons) does not require us to go to the extreme that every word of it is fairytale like. The power of mythos is that, in many cases, it is rooted in something relevant to those hearing/reading it. So then, the categorization of the creation account as mythological does not necessarily require that the whole of Genesis (or all of Scripture, for that matter) be understood in precisely the same way.

This is the point of closely analyzing the genre of the text, in order to understand the sitz em laben which prompted its composition in the first place.

Simply put the story in Genesis wouldn't have descended from the spread of other creation myths, but from the detail that God gave to Moses. I'm not saying either that Moses wrote Genesis, but Genesis ultimately descend from the information Moses was given by God.

For the benefit of the doubt, let's grant this point. Why, then, would we see such striking similarity between the structure and content of the Genesis creation narrative and that of other ANE creation narratives, almost all (if not all) of which predate the date of writing of Genesis? If the information came from God, not from a shared oral history of the ancient peoples, how did the information communicated from God to Moses retroactively find its way into the creation narratives of the other cultures of the time?

Also, if we are to say Genesis is written as a myth (meaning it doesn't require for it to be factually true)

This is not the point of myth...

and the NT Gospels to be written as history (requiring it to be factually true),

This definition of "history" is very modern, and I've not advocated that the NT Gospels were written as this kind of "history".

...then the NT definitely presents Genesis as factually true. Just from the line of descent in Jesus' geneaology. So right there, if Adam didn't exist factually, Jesus didn't exist factually either. And if Genesis didn't factually happen, there's no reason to be a Christian.

That doesn't make any sense. If you understand the role of genealogies within the ancient world, it's very easy to reconcile the Adamic inclusion in Jesus' lineage without at the same time necessitating that Adam is a "historical" (in the modern sense) person.

So with what I said above, it shows why Genesis must be factually true, in order for Christianity to be factually true.

Wait, why does Christianity have to be "factually" true? Christianity predates modern philosophy...why it is suddenly beholden to it?

I assume we both consider Jesus to have literally died for our sins thousands of years ago. In the same manner, Adam was a historical person who's actions brought death into the world.

I still don't see the necessity for requiring this conclusion.

I believe that is where you're wrong. Genesis can be verified, or proven completely false.

How?

ven the creation part, I believe can be verified as well.

How?

That evidence can be gathered that would conclude if God created the universe or not. This is done from combining the account with scientific inquiry. In Daniel it is written that knowledge would increase. With the introduction of scientific stuy, our knowledge increases everyday. With this knowledge, we can take a better look at what Genesis is saying, and finally prove it true or false. (From where I'm coming from with this. Science as we know it right now, does suggest Genesis is not factual. However, not yet. Genesis says more than the storybook picture most get from traditional thought)

I disagree vehemently. God's creation of the universe is a miraculous, supernatural thing. If it could be verified on the basis of non-miraculous, non-supernatural investigation, the only thing that would be proven is that which is within the domain of the tools of investigation. That is, the only thing that scientific methodology can "prove" regarding the origin of the universe is that which belongs to the domain of the universe.

Therefore, since the universe did not have a material beginning, but was rather called into existence from the immaterial God of all, there exists absolutely no tools within human epistemology that could lead us to a demonstrable proof this.

It's valid because if it's not historical, Genesis truly is another creation story.

And what's wrong with that? As I already discussed, this can be perfectly reconciled when one understands the place of creation stories within the ancient world, in addition to the rather clever and innovative transformations which were applied to the Genesis account.

If it's not historical, why should we think it's from God?

Why should we think it's from God if it IS historical? Again, the prejudices of modern thought have created necessity where none actually exists.

Surely God could provide information about our origins.

And why is a creation myth not sufficient for this? Why is scientifically verifiable information the only valid form of divine communication? Based on this criteria, the only conclusion that one could consistently come to is a thorough-going materialism.

If He can speak on future events, certainly He can speak on events already past.

Again, why is mythos not sufficient for this?

This would officially be evidence that God is involved with this story.

Maybe, but you'd never be able to validate the claim, given that the tools you are using can only speak to that which is finite and temporal.

I do have to be honest here, because the message of Genesis is truly unique to any other creation story. Genesis is the only story that says we are created in God's image. Every other culture would probably say that is straight up blasphemous. Also Genesis pretty much states God created ex-nihilo, He created from His own power and choice to create. I haven't come across other stories that suggests things like that. (Though there could be ones out there like that)

So the message is unique, but it has to be proven factually true or else Christianity is not factually true either.

You still haven't explained why Christianity has to be "factually" true. Why is the faith of the Christian beholden to the verification principles of modern philosophy?

I disagree. Remember that the world and universe God created, would have been supernatural in itself if you ask us. Think about it. There was no death, there was a different system of precipitation, and probably the knowledge of Adam and Eve was off the charts. Death affected creation, and so the processes changed. All we have to do is work backwards in a way, find details that didn't change so drastically from that time. One area is deep space. Another area might be on the deep ocean floor, where no sunlight reach that far. Then examine everything in between from there. If Genesis verified, it would verify the one who gave the inspiration for the account. It's the logical conclusion.

Verifying Genesis (again, how do you verify something which is not in itself historical?) would do no such thing. Verifying every single word of Scripture on the basis of historical/rational criticism would lend precisely ZERO support for establishing the existence of God. All it would prove is that the Scriptures achieve the standard of verifiability applied to them by historical criticism, which is ultimately a circular, subjective standard anyway.

Death isn't a requisite for life, or else eternal life wouldn't make sense. The processes that go on now, is how life evolved after death came in.

Eternal life, which is trans-physical/temporal, would likely existe according to different principles than those which exist in the universe we occupy. The fact remains that in order for you to have biological life, there has to be biological death; otherwise, your body would not function, your mind would not be active, etc.

Just so I understand where you're coming from, are you saying even if we never lost that connection to God, we would still have things like disease on the earth? That even if God was with us, people would still be born with deformities and have painful traits like sickle cell anemia, and would see those things as "very good"?

Yes. As I said, the evaluation of these things as "bad" is because of our fundamental animosity toward and alienation from God. There is nothing "bad" in the natural biological processes that occur (diseases, natural disaster, etc.). We evaluate them as bad because they remind us of the everlasting consequences of being separated from God. If this separation did not exist, we would find peace and serenity in our place within the universe, vaporous and fleeting as it is.

Because these things are factually linked to what we believe. If they are not factual, what we believe is not factual.

You are linking them as such. I don't see that this link is necessary, however.

And again, just so we are on the same page, if our relationship with God was never broken, would we see aids and other immune system attacking diseases as a good thing?

Yes, I believe we would. We would live in the knowledge of God, seeing the beauty of creation and being content in our place within the good universe that God has created. Given that we are alienated from God, we spread the corruption of our hearts into the creation, seeing bad in that which God has declared good, making a curse of the beauty which God intended for us to enjoy.

 

[enlightened1]

Shall we use the fallible science of man to prove GOD? What a maroon! Even the bible says we cannot trust the science of man (1TIM6:20), and science's track record clearly shows it cannot be trusted in the long run. Here is as simple as it gets: if you believe GOD, you believe HIS WORD by faith; however, if you doubt HIS WORD, you must turn to science for proof (which will never happen).

 

[Assyrian]

Actually I hear that scientist have given up on trying to maintain the myth that the little river caused the massive erosion and now think it may well have been a flood. Well what do you know A flood -who'd of thought it

You talking about the idea of [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hopi Lake flood? That certainly was a [/FONT]hypothesis[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] geologists explored[/FONT], but it didn't hold up. The mistake creationist make is is thinking any mention of flooding in geology must mean it was Noah's flood. If the Colorado was such a little river, why go to so much effort building the Hoover dam?

 

[Papias]

I believe people (Christians) had the wrong idea concerning what Genesis was saying. For one, Genesis is not a science book. Christian geologists and so forth in the 1800s, approached this thing that the Bible was dishing out science. And they looked to verify those points. Once they found those points weren't correct scientifically, they no longer examined the account as factual in any area thereafter. Yet I approach this thing from Genesis being historical and not scientific. It's hard to fully explain for now, .......

OK, it sounds like you have an interpretation of Genesis that you hope to compare to the data. Go for it.

I have a new research technique concerning this. .....I'm not throwing out what they researched, I'm just interested in seeing if there is something more to know here. With Genesis being an origin account, there could be key pieces that we don't observe today that is throwing us off with our current understanding of history. So that's how I'm approaching this.

Cool. If it is truly as groundbreaking as it sounds, then it could be a major advancement. If so, then it's worth much more than a few blokes talking about on a chat board, but should be expanded upon and investigated. Perhaps one place to start to do that would be discuss it with the Christian experts at Biologos? Here is the link. Home | BioLogos

After all, if that idea does shed light on the origins discussion, it could help bring thousands to Christ, helping to offset or prevent the thousands who leave Christianity every year due to creationism.

Originally Posted by Papias

Have you read Luke chapter 10 (the good samaritan)? Does it matter whether or not there actually was a samaritan who did exactly what the story says? Of course not. Note that Jesus never says "this is a story that may not have actually happened". No, he just tells the story so it can inform us of the message God is telling us. Whether or not it actually happened isn't relevant.

If the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc didn't actually happen (another example is the sun standing still in Joshua, etc), then Christianity is fine - just as fine as it was after Jesus told the Good Samaritan story.

Like I mentioned in my posts above, the NT presents Genesis as historical.
​

Except that the Good Samaritan, and other stories, show that the NT does not neccessarily present Genesis as historical. You may have been told one thing or another, but if you read the NT yourself, you'll see that an historical view is not required.

Jesus' line of descent goes all the way back to Adam,

It's important to remember that scripture interprets scripture. God's word itself tells us that those geneologies are to be taken figuratively, by showing that they can't all be literally true, because they contradict each other. For instance. Luke and Matthew disagree (if read literally) on who Joeseph's grandfather, great grandfather, etc. were.

Similarly, Mt openly removes names from a geneology he got from Cr, telling us (well, the Holy Spirit telling us) that they are figurative.

You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:
Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son,
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,

....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son

7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son

8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son
]
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,

11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.

and there are mentions throughout Paul's letters and some of the others that when put together, presents Genesis as historical.

Paul explicitly says that Adam is a figure of something else. Again, it sounds like you are repeating what you've been told, not reading for yourself.

Originally Posted by Papias

Yes, Christianity wouldn't exist or otherwise be true.

But we see around us (and inside ourselves) that Christianity does indeed still exist. Since that evidence has shown for a long time that the three events you are referring to didn't actually happen as described by a literal reading of scripture, then you are claiming that Christianity already must have vanished - and it hasn't.

Papias
​

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

But again, you're importing categories onto the text, reflecting modern assumptions and prejudices about the valuation of "history". Saying that Genesis is mythological (or parts of it at least...more than likely, it was written over many years, with parts added for particular religio/political reasons) does not require us to go to the extreme that every word of it is fairytale like. The power of mythos is that, in many cases, it is rooted in something relevant to those hearing/reading it. So then, the categorization of the creation account as mythological does not necessarily require that the whole of Genesis (or all of Scripture, for that matter) be understood in precisely the same way.

This is the point of closely analyzing the genre of the text, in order to understand the sitz em laben which prompted its composition in the first place.

Yet don't you understand, that every supernatural act of God could be understood as mythologically true, and not historical fact? Have you heard of the Documentary Hypothesis? The same sources that wrote Genesis, can be seen in Exodus and Numbers. The whole history of Israel can be seen as mythos, and not necessarily historically true. The Genesis creation story wouldn't have just come down through an oral tradition, but the whole of Israel's origin as well. The things concerning Jesus, is directly linked to the history of the Law. Yet we can just as easily say Moses and everything written in the Exodus is also in the myth genre.

For the benefit of the doubt, let's grant this point. Why, then, would we see such striking similarity between the structure and content of the Genesis creation narrative and that of other ANE creation narratives, almost all (if not all) of which predate the date of writing of Genesis? If the information came from God, not from a shared oral history of the ancient peoples, how did the information communicated from God to Moses retroactively find its way into the creation narratives of the other cultures of the time?

Well the people around Israel spoke languages that were close to one another. So having the same structure in an origin story shouldn't surprise us. Also having some of the same elements within the origin story could tell us those events did happened, but the memory of it got distorted. So the story that actually came from God, would tell the whole truth concerning the event.

That doesn't make any sense. If you understand the role of genealogies within the ancient world, it's very easy to reconcile the Adamic inclusion in Jesus' lineage without at the same time necessitating that Adam is a "historical" (in the modern sense) person.

Why not? If one guy didn't literally exist, why should I believe someone who descended from him is real? Also, you keep saying history in a modern sense. Well, we are almost 2,000 years seperated from when the Gospels were written. Some believe, for instance Matthew, the Gospels construed things to make Jesus sound like He was something. (Matthew took some scriptures from the OT, and said Jesus fulfilled them, when those scriptures wasn't necessarily talking about someone like Jesus specifically) So these guys weren't viewing history in the "modern" sense either, and Jesus could definitely be of mythos understanding.

Wait, why does Christianity have to be "factually" true? Christianity predates modern philosophy...why it is suddenly beholden to it?

Are you saying Christianity doesn't have to be factually true? What parts don't have to be factually true? That Jesus died for our sin, and was resurrected? That Jesus did many miracles. If all those things didn't happen, we are simply following another religious belief that man thought up. There has got to be something solid about God, something concrete! If these stories are not so, then they are probably just another story man cooked up around the camp fire. We are taught to have a reason for our faith. Paul wrote to people telling them he came in the demonstration of the power of God, not just with words. That's solid stuff. If Paul worked miracles, then Jesus definitely worked miracles and did what He did. So yes, Christianity has to be factually true.

All this stuff about the modern definition of history is just colorful words. If it happened, it happened. The ancient people weren't dummies. I bet if we could travel back in time, and asked Paul whether Jesus did the things that's reported, he wouldn't tell us these things are just a story of a moral truth floating around out there. No, Paul would tell us this stuff happened.

How?

As far as verifying the creation part of it, we are to understand that God created the universe and the earth in the sense of a whole. For instance, as far as stars go, they were all created mature. There is no creation or formation of new stars and so forth today. (Of course I know astronomers say they see stars in every stage from birth to death out there in the universe, but I'll look into that later. I'm skeptical they actually see the process of a star igniting into existence, but more so they have the physics down suggesting it's happening) With all that in mind, if God created stars and no new stars form, then we should be able to make certain predictions that would validate that. So that's one way to verify the creation account.

I disagree vehemently. God's creation of the universe is a miraculous, supernatural thing. If it could be verified on the basis of non-miraculous, non-supernatural investigation, the only thing that would be proven is that which is within the domain of the tools of investigation. That is, the only thing that scientific methodology can "prove" regarding the origin of the universe is that which belongs to the domain of the universe.

Therefore, since the universe did not have a material beginning, but was rather called into existence from the immaterial God of all, there exists absolutely no tools within human epistemology that could lead us to a demonstrable proof this.

You see science as working by itself here. The kind of science that scientists do, is based on the observations that we make. They make predictions about things from their observation, and they test those hypotheses out. What I'm doing is a little different. I believe God gave us a historically valid account concerning our origins in Genesis. This is not my observation at all. I'm actually taking God's observation, and testing that out. Our observation is limited, but God has seen everything from the very beginning until now. If I'm correct, I'm working a higher form of science. Since God's observation is beyond natural, this level of science can verify can reveal the whole truth.

And what's wrong with that? As I already discussed, this can be perfectly reconciled when one understands the place of creation stories within the ancient world, in addition to the rather clever and innovative transformations which were applied to the Genesis account.

If it's another creation story, it's another creation story. Even if God's involved in it, it's really not telling us much at all. How would you seperate the human part, from the God part. It's wonderful the ancient hebrew people innovated their own creation story, but my ancestors also had their own innovations. Why should I treasure someone else's ancestors thoughts, over my own ancestors? So in order for this story to be unique, it must be historically true.

Why should we think it's from God if it IS historical? Again, the prejudices of modern thought have created necessity where none actually exists.

Because if it's not historical, this is simply the hebrew people's imagination at work. You would have a hard time seperating human art, from God's knowledge. By the way, why do you keep calling our sense of history as prejudice? You don't think the ancient people were interested in their real origins? Even if the story was made up to keep the people under control, I doubt many of them was looking at this story and seeing it as just that. A story with a moral truth. If that were the case, I doubt the people would have been so interested in genealogy. (Have you read all the names throughout the first five books and on? Your head would start doing back flips trying to read through them in one setting. The people were definitely interested in their history)

And why is a creation myth not sufficient for this? Why is scientifically verifiable information the only valid form of divine communication? Based on this criteria, the only conclusion that one could consistently come to is a thorough-going materialism.

Again, how would you seperate God's inspiration from man's imagination? As many atheists have told me, there are many moral lessons in the Harry Potter series, as there are in the Bible. What would seperate them, is literal truth. That the events stated in the Bible, literally happened.

Maybe, but you'd never be able to validate the claim, given that the tools you are using can only speak to that which is finite and temporal.

No, I'm already convince that basic observation of the world around us cannot prove the events of Genesis. Certain things that once exist, exist no longer for our observation. Yet with the account, combining with the study technique of science, can bring out those things that are missing. The logical conclusion would be God inspired Genesis and the Bible, if it's proven true. Just think about it, the people who wrote Genesis didn't see the flood take place, and they definitely didn't see the creation take place. So how could they be correct about those events if they weren't around to see it? The only one that could have seen those events of course, is God. So proving them true verifies God's existence, and that He is the God of the Bible.

You still haven't explained why Christianity has to be "factually" true. Why is the faith of the Christian beholden to the verification principles of modern philosophy?

The Bible talks about having a reason for your faith. That reason can't be because we like moral truths. There's moral truths in every religion, and just about every fiction story as well. (Some fiction stories are just plain nonsense ) No, your reason has to based on solid stuff. Faith isn't about believing in something without evidence. Faith is simply trust. And God wants us to have solid reason for why we trust Him. Or else we are no better than cats who sacrifice their children to wooden idols. They do those things out of fear, and God doesn't want us to believe in Him in fear.

Verifying Genesis (again, how do you verify something which is not in itself historical?) would do no such thing. Verifying every single word of Scripture on the basis of historical/rational criticism would lend precisely ZERO support for establishing the existence of God. All it would prove is that the Scriptures achieve the standard of verifiability applied to them by historical criticism, which is ultimately a circular, subjective standard anyway.

Just for the sake of the argument, if I proved Jesus did miracles, that wouldn't say nothing about God's existence? If I proved the Israelites definitely walked across the Red Sea on dry ground, that wouldn't say one thing about God? For anyone who said that, I would say they weren't being honest with themselves. They would be like how creationists are presented today.

Eternal life, which is trans-physical/temporal, would likely existe according to different principles than those which exist in the universe we occupy. The fact remains that in order for you to have biological life, there has to be biological death; otherwise, your body would not function, your mind would not be active, etc.

First thing about what you're saying, our cells aren't considered to be alive as we are, according to the Bible. Plants aren't alive as we are, and the animals are. The scientific definition of life is different from what God describes as life. Adam became a living soul when God gave him the breath of life. Adam being alive, and his cells being alive are two different categories here.

Secondly, this world we live in is corrupt. God definitely see a problem with this world. Paul said the whole creation is groaning and we are groaning, waiting for the the "redemption" of our bodies. Now if we break that word down, it means to recover something or restore something. Being redeemed in our bodies mean God didn't create our bodies as they are today, and in fact this earth as we see it today. Jesus didn't just come to restore a lost relationship, but to restore everything back to how it was in the beginning.

Yes. As I said, the evaluation of these things as "bad" is because of our fundamental animosity toward and alienation from God. There is nothing "bad" in the natural biological processes that occur (diseases, natural disaster, etc.). We evaluate them as bad because they remind us of the everlasting consequences of being separated from God. If this separation did not exist, we would find peace and serenity in our place within the universe, vaporous and fleeting as it is.




Yes, I believe we would. We would live in the knowledge of God, seeing the beauty of creation and being content in our place within the good universe that God has created. Given that we are alienated from God, we spread the corruption of our hearts into the creation, seeing bad in that which God has declared good, making a curse of the beauty which God intended for us to enjoy.

Ultimately that doesn't make sense. We lost more than a connection with God. In fact, the connection itself is what links us to eternity and health. To say there would still be diseases even if the relationship was never broken, is to say God is both good and evil at the same time. Jesus remarked that even though we are evil, we still know how to give good gifts to our children. How much more God? (Which implies God is not evil)


Even if Genesis is to be understood as a myth, we are to take away that with God, everything is pretty much a paradise. That even when we work, we don't sweat and struggle.