Examining Genesis...

[AV1611VET]

Two questions, Assyrian:

1. Did the angels come on the scene fully-evolved?
2. Is there such a thing as abiogenesis?

 

[gluadys]

Jesus quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact. Adam and Eve were created in the beginning and not billions of years later.

I really don't know what "quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact" means.

What would he say differently if he were simply quoting Genesis?

How would "quoting Genesis" be distinguished from "quoting Genesis as if it were literal historical fact"?

The latter sounds like some sort of mind-reading and across two millennia at that.

 

[Assyrian]

Two questions, Assyrian:

1. Did the angels come on the scene fully-evolved?​

​

You have asked that before and were shown how completely irrelevant it is. Angels are neither biological life forms nor do they reproduce. What have they to do with evolution? Is there any suggestion in the bible God made angels the same way he made animals and humans? For example, do you think angels were made of clay? If not, what ever does God's creation of angels have to do with how he made biological life?

2. Is there such a thing as abiogenesis?​

​

The bible seems to say there is. Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures. The earth is not living, yet God commanded the non living earth to produce life. Sound like abiogenesis to me, and interestingly that is the way the passage was interpreted by Church Fathers.

 

[AV1611VET]

[/indent]You have asked that before and were shown how completely irrelevant it is. Angels are neither biological life forms nor do they reproduce. What have they to do with evolution? Is there any suggestion in the bible God made angels the same way he made animals and humans? For example, do you think angels were made of clay? If not, what ever does God's creation of angels have to do with how he made biological life?

So God created life ex nihilo?

 

[Assyrian]

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Which came first in the universe?

[The] Life --- or non-life?

 

[Assyrian]

If you are talking about [The] Life, I presume you mean God who is before all things.

But this is getting tedious AV, you have brought up the idea of life being created ex nihilo before, you were shown what ex nihilo means and you were shown they it simply doesn't apply to God creating life even if you take Genesis completely literally. What do you think God made Adam from?

a) nothing
​

or

b) dust
​

If you answer a) go back and read Genesis again.
If you answered b) you do not believe God created Adam ex nihilo

Why do bring up an argument you know is wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

But this is getting tedious AV, you have brought up the idea of life being created ex nihilo before, you were shown what ex nihilo means and you were shown they it simply doesn't apply to God creating life even if you take Genesis completely literally.

Let's put Adam aside for a moment and go back even further, clear back to where there was nothing but God, Himself.

Abiogenesis?

Yes or no.

 

[Assyrian]

No.

Do you even know what abiogenesis means?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I really don't know what "quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact" means.

What would he say differently if he were simply quoting Genesis?

How would "quoting Genesis" be distinguished from "quoting Genesis as if it were literal historical fact"?

The latter sounds like some sort of mind-reading and across two millennia at that.

On the contrary, how you interpret Genesis is reading some "hidden" meaning from the text.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Is the 'blood of Zechariah' a historical reality? In other words, was there a High Priest/Prophet named Zechariah who was slain just as Jesus had described in Luke 11:51?

 

[crawfish]

"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Mark 10:6 nasb

Jesus quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact. Adam and Eve were created in the beginning and not billions of years later.

Tell me this - was the "beginning of creation" the first day or the sixth?

 

[Calypsis4]

Tell me this - was the "beginning of creation" the first day or the sixth?

It involves all the first six days of creation. Why equivocate about such a thing?

The writers of the New Testament also taught that the Genesis creation was literal.

2 Corinth. 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

These words have no meaning unless Adam and Eve were created as Moses said they were and did the things that Genesis records that they did. There is no evolution in the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

The writers of the New Testament also taught that the Genesis creation was literal.

How does citing the Genesis creation account make it historical?
If I cited one of Jesus' parables, would that suddenly make it historical?
Not sure I understand your reasoning here.

 

[crawfish]

It involves all the first six days of creation. Why equivocate about such a thing?

Who are you to pick and choose how literally to take a verse?

 

[Calypsis4]

Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.

"NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account."

Jesus did: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. " Mark 10:6

Where did Jesus hint anywhere that Genesis was to be take in any other sense than the literal/historical one? He made it clear that Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel, and Noah were real people and that the creation and flood were to be understood in the most literal sense and never hinted otherwise.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6

"...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35.

"They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27.

It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.

 

[Calypsis4]

Is the 'blood of Zechariah' a historical reality? In other words, was there a High Priest/Prophet named Zechariah who was slain just as Jesus had described in Luke 11:51?

Of course there was because Jesus said so. End of line; at least for believers who take Jesus words seriously. Theistic evolutionists DON'T take Jesus words seriously, they equivocate on Genesis and especially what Jesus said about Genesis in order to escape the meaning of the plain text of scripture. Such people are embarrassed at the thought of a literal six day creation because they feel so intimidated at the 'overwhelming evidence' of evolution. Such a position is not justified however, either by the evidence or by the demands of the plain text of God's Word.

The point being made by the poster above is an excellent point. If TE's are correct and Genesis is not literal (chaps 1-11 especially) then why would Christ mention a non-historical figure (Abel) in the same sentence with a historical one (Zechariah)? The Jews certainly thought Zechariah was a historical figure. The position of the TE on such issues is dishonest.

The same is true of Christ's lineage as compared with the chronology that Moses gave us of the antediluvians who are mentioned in Genesis 5. The very same names as found in Genesis are given by Luke in Jesus family tree in Luke 3. Unless that family tree is accurate and correct then what claim could Jesus ever make to being heir to the throne of David?

 

[Assyrian]

NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account.

Jesus did: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. " Mark 10:6

Where did Jesus hint anywhere that Genesis was to be take in any other sense than the literal/historical one? He made it clear that Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel, and Noah were real people and that the creation and flood were to be understood in the most literal sense and never hinted otherwise.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6

"...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35.

"They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27.

It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.

How do you think Jesus interpreted Genesis 3:15?

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

 

[shernren]

How do you think Jesus interpreted Genesis 3:15?

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

No wonder Jesus was sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.

"Um, God, I was supposed to get my heel bruised, right? That was supposed to be it! What's this cross business?"

 

[Mallon]

It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.

It's funny you should call the accommodationist hermeneutic "shallow" while insisting on a superficial understanding of the text.

Again, simply citing a story doesn't make it historical. People cite Aesop's fables all the time, but that doesn't mean that a talking ant and grasshopper ever existed. Could've sworn I made this point here before.