Does the Bible connect the doctrine on origins to the Gospel?

[BobRyan]

Some will argue that the doctrine on origins should not be connected to the Gospel in the Bible.

(And of course we would not expect Atheists or agnostics to care if the Bible makes that connection in places like Romans 1 or not)

So the question here is - does the Bible make that connection?

=======================

1. The bible begins with its statement on origins in Genesis 1-2 in a 7 day week of seven "evenings and mornings" -- and then the fall of mankind in Genesis 3 with its gospel promise given in that same chapter.

2. The Gospel of John begins with its statement on the doctrine on origins and then introduces the gospel in that same chapter -- John 1.

3. The Law of God puts the doctrine on origins in legal code -- sumarizing Genesis 2:1-3 in Exodus 20:9,11 "six days you shall labor...For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth and seas and all that is in them"

4. The NT Links the Bible doctrine on origins to the "everlasting Gospel", worship of God and future judgment in Rev 14:6-7

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven with an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people; 7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and sea and springs of waters.”​

5. Romans 1 connects the Bible doctrine on origins with judgment and worship and reasoning.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is,

• His eternal power
  
• and divine nature,

have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

..32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.​

So in just a few examples we see how the bible links the doctrine on origins to a number of key subjects in Christianity.

It cannot be denied that the Bible makes such links explicitly.

Everyone has free will and can choose to ignore the Bible on any topic they wish - but the fact that "there exists" Bible texts that make those links to the doctrine on origins is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

Some may respond that from an atheist or agnostic POV it does not matter if the Bible makes that connection to the doctrine on origins.

And as I said - everyone has free will - they are free to ignore the Bible connection as they wish.

 

[BobRyan]

John 1 in more detail

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.

6 A man came, one sent from God, and his name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Speedwell]

John 1 in more detail

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.

6 A man came, one sent from God, and his name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

None of which has anything to do with the possibility of evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

None of which has anything to do with the possibility of evolution.

I don't know of a single book on evolution that reads like this bit of legal code "six days you shall labor...11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, ...."

you say that leaves a lot of room for evolution to operate but don't explain how that is - given that no evolution text makes that statement or claims to be compatible with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some may respond that from an atheist or agnostic POV it does not matter if the Bible makes that connection to the doctrine on origins.

And as I said - everyone has free will - they are free to ignore the Bible connection as they wish.

Isn't this more of a theology question?

After all, this sub-forum is about discussing "orgins", etc., including the whole "evolution v. creation" thing (especially). *WHY* you think it is supported by your ancient writings isn't of particular relevance here.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know of a single book on evolution that reads like this bit of legal code "six days you shall labor...11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, ...."

you say that leaves a lot of room for evolution to operate but don't explain how that is - given that no evolution text makes that statement or claims to be compatible with it.

There is nothing about "six days" in that quote from John 1.

 

[BobRyan]

Some will argue that the doctrine on origins should not be connected to the Gospel in the Bible.

So the question here is - does the Bible make that connection?

Isn't this more of a theology question?

After all, this sub-forum is about discussing "orgins", etc., including the whole "evolution v. creation" thing (especially). *WHY* you think it is supported by your ancient writings isn't of particular relevance here.

I agree that not everyone will be interested in this thread but there are a few evolutionists here who are neither atheist or agnostic that may find Romans 1 statements on origins to be of interest.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree that not everyone will be interested in this thread but there are a few evolutionists here who are neither atheist or agnostic that may find Romans 1 statements on origins to be of interest.

Thank you for calling it to our attention, but I believe we were familiar with it already, and it contains nothing which would bear on our acceptance of evolution theory.

 

[BobRyan]

There is nothing about "six days" in that quote from John 1.

I see it in the legal code of Ex 20:9,11 referencing the Bible doctrine on origins and connecting it to a day of worship.

I see the John 1 chapter connecting the Bible doctrine on origins to the Gospel. If your statement is that John did not know about the Bible doctrine on origins having the 6-day detail in it that we find in "legal code" in the Bible.... I am interested in how that came about.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree that not everyone will be interested in this thread but there are a few evolutionists here who are neither atheist or agnostic that may find Romans 1 statements on origins to be of interest.

Ahh romans 1 that famous "my book says my book is right and if you don't see that my god will give you SSA and make you act on it so you can be condemned to death" passage. I know from personal experience that it isn't correct.

 

[BobRyan]

Ahh romans 1 that famous "my book says my book is right and if you don't see that my god will give you SSA and make you act on it so you can be condemned to death" passage. I know from personal experience that it isn't correct.

as the OP states ... it would be surprising to us if atheists and agnostics were concerned that their views are not in line with statements made in the Bible , in Romans 1 on the subject of the Bible doctrine on origins.

But an evolutionist brought up this issue with me on another thread (not on this topic) so I am providing this thread topic for focus on that point.

 

[Speedwell]

I see it in the legal code of Ex 20:9,11 referencing the Bible doctrine on origins and connecting it to a day of worship.

I see the John 1 chapter connecting the Bible doctrine on origins to the Gospel. If your statement is that John did not know about the Bible doctrine on origins having the 6-day detail in it that we find in "legal code" in the Bible.... I am interested in how that came about.

No, just that he didn't mention it--which made me wonder why you did, because it certainly isn't a proof text for a literal six-day creation.

 

[BobRyan]

No, just that he didn't mention it--which made me wonder why you did .

Because he mentioned the Bible doctrine on origins and the Bible has statements on that detail.

so then part of the "origins topic" -- obviously. Not sure why this is even a question.

 

[Neogaia777]

Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 should be it's own book in itself, since it is a summary of and entire creation from it's very beginning, to it's (or their) very endings, etc...

Then in Genesis 2:5, which is where another book should start, (or actually 2:7) (but the other should end at 2:4, etc) anyway, in Genesis 2:5 or 2:7, it starts right on day 6, etc, or during day 6, etc, or after day 6 has already been going for awhile, etc, and day 7 doesn't start or begin until Jesus comes back, and that goes, or lasts, to this entire creations very end or ending, etc...

But Adam and Eve were a special creation, direct creations of God, or Sons of God, and not Sons of Man or Men, etc, like the rest that were already in the earth were, etc, or that were coming up in the earth were, etc, that were a lesser creation or race, etc, and the Garden of Eden was a special regional creation of or by God at that time, etc, literally created from the dust of the earth by God, (Adam was I mean, etc), along with the animals that were made for him (Adam) at that time, etc, which were samplings of all the animals that were already present and/or were coming up in the rest of the earth, etc, and maybe had been present before that time maybe, etc, (that part I don't fully know, etc) anyway, the animals that were made for him (Adam) or that were brought to him, etc, also literally made and/or created from the dust of the ground there at that time by God directly at that time in the Garden then, etc, but they were perfect animals, and not yet fallen ones, etc, just like Adam was a perfect man, and not yet fallen, etc, but was a direct Son of God and not of the rest of the other sons of man or men, cause the Garden of Eden was a perfect place, but in a specific region, etc...

And they, all the Sons of God that came after Adam and Eve, etc, were also a special race of Sons of God and not of the lesser race of man or men, etc, and they were localized in an area that did not have any contact with the other sons of man or men, until about Genesis 6, etc, when they finally started to come into contact with them, (except Cain and his descendants who already had, etc, and had already started mating with them, etc) but the rest of the Sons of God, or true descendants of Adam and Eve, did not come into contact with them until about Genesis 6, etc, and then they saw that "those little girls were fine", etc, (paraphrasing a bit here, etc) and then did what God did not like very much, etc, and had sex with them and started to have hybrid children with them or by them, etc, and then God decided to destroy all of the true original Sons of God and the Nephlim that had been conceived in that region at that time, except for only Noah and his family only, etc, and afterwards Noah and his family were the only true Sons of God left over after that, and maybe very, very few, if any, Nephlim left after that, etc...

And in Chapter 10, the sons listed to Noah's sons, etc, were probably all mighty men in the earth, to start with anyway, or were Nephlim more than likely, etc, Nimrod is described as being a "mighty man in the earth", which was used to describe the Nephlim before the flood, etc...

The true Sons of God that were before the flood, might have even been a much physically larger race as well, etc, maybe even giants, quite literally, etc, maybe 10 to 12 feet tall maybe, etc, and Adam and Eve as well, etc, but most all of them were all wiped out by the flood, except Noah and his family, etc, and the Sons of Noah probably had no choice but to mate with the lesser sons of men, etc, after which the purity of their race, was eventually bred out, etc...

Apparently they were able to preserve some of the Nephlim though, maybe through selective breeding and keeping and maintaining their race or bloodline for a while though, with some of them anyway, cause we hear of some of them later on still, etc...

Anyway, might post more later...

But I think that is enough for now...

God Bless!

 

[sparow]

Isn't this more of a theology question?

After all, this sub-forum is about discussing "orgins", etc., including the whole "evolution v. creation" thing (especially). *WHY* you think it is supported by your ancient writings isn't of particular relevance here.

I am amazed! Where are we, where is here. That you would say, "evolution v. creation", and that that contest would have an origin. "Evolution v. creation", is like "banana v. cloud", well not exactly; creation is an abstract and if expounded, evolution could be one of the infinite number of methods that the spokesperson of God, may have used to create; I can imagine men debating "evolution v. creation", where debate prove who is the best debater and not who is right.

The six day creation story or parable is a limit that initiates (according to many) a six thousand year period where there is the end of time, the other limit, between which is a rationale of history and prophesy. Out side of those limits God has given us little. The theory of evolution attempts to explain something that God has made no attempt to explain.

 

[sparow]

I don't know of a single book on evolution that reads like this bit of legal code "six days you shall labor...11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, ...."

you say that leaves a lot of room for evolution to operate but don't explain how that is - given that no evolution text makes that statement or claims to be compatible with it.

I have failed to grasp the intention of the OP; the Theory of Evolution is not according to Scientific method, neither is the Theory of Climate Change; what category should these fall into?

 

[Tolworth John]

If God created a world which is very good, where is the need for a saviour but in the rejection by his created beings.
Evolution assumes that what we see in humanity is normal, there is no fall, no need of a saviour for man has always been the way we are.

Evil is a problem for everyone to explain why it is, but only Christianity says why there is evil and that there is an answer to it.
If Adam didn't fall there is no Jesus who died and rose again.

Historically Jesus lived, died and his tomb was found to be empty. So it follows there was an Adam who fell.

 

[BobRyan]

I have failed to grasp the intention of the OP;
A. the Theory of Evolution is not according to Scientific method,
B. neither is the Theory of Climate Change;
what category should these fall into?

The first one falls into the category of "doctrine(teaching) on origins (how did life on earth originate)" where it is pure story telling or science fact or ....

the second one falls in to the category of the flood and ice age...clearly we are not having an ice age today -- so the climate today is warmer than it was in the ice age.

 

[BobRyan]

I am amazed! Where are we, where is here. That you would say, "evolution v. creation", and that that contest would have an origin. "Evolution v. creation", is like "banana v. cloud", well not exactly; creation is an abstract and if expounded, evolution could be one of the infinite number of methods that the spokesperson of God, may have used to create;

IF we had a mythical Bible that limited God to saying "I created something in some way" or " I created all things ... in some way I will not say"..

Then filling in the gaps with the doctrine on origins found in evolutionism would make God the god of evolutionism and may indeed fit that sort of mythical Bible.

But instead of that the Bible is much more specific about creation - in 7 evening-and-mornings where the "day" is stated to be the same length of day as at Sinai as shown in this "legal code" (not parable not symbol - but legal code) Ex 20:9,11 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made..." earth and all life on Earth. That is "very specifically" NOT evolution and no evolution text known to mankind reads that way.

The six day creation story or parable is a limit that initiates (according to many) a six thousand year period where there is the end of time, the other limit, between which is a rationale of history and prophesy. Out side of those limits God has given us little. The theory of evolution attempts to explain something that God has made no attempt to explain.

The details God already gave in the creation account prohibits the evolution story for clearly "no evolution text known to mankind reads that way." And since it is in the form of legal code there is no way to spirit-away-the-details it points to that do not fit the evolution story.