Foundation

[Knee V]

I've heard two different schools of thought (and there may be more) about the relationship between Genesis and the totality of the Christian faith, and I'm curious as to why you see things the way you do.

One camps says that if we can't believe the opening pages of the Bible, then we can't believe anything else in the Bible, especially Jesus' claims and his Resurrection. But if we can demonstrate that Genesis is reliable then we can at least begin to trust the rest of Scripture and have more faith that Jesus is who He says He is and that what's recorded about his works and His resurrection can be shown to be reliable.

The other camp says that if we don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then what's written in Genesis doesn't really matter. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then we can take a look at Genesis and begin to see what it means and why/how it applies to our lives.

What is your approach to this, and why? I fall into the latter camp, because if you prove creation, then you've given credence to Judaism and Islam just as much as to Christianity. But if you prove the resurrection, then you have a reason to find a reason in Genesis.

I understand that some approach things differently. I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks in advance for your input and insight.

 

[vossler]

I would amend your assessment and state I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God and therefore one cannot dismiss any of it as false or less important as another. This is supported by the Bible itself which states in

2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
​

So if the entire Bible is God breathed then that means Genesis thru Revelation is true, no exceptions. This means there is no need to 'prove' anything but just to believe. There is no false competition between the creation account and whether Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[juvenissun]

I've heard two different schools of thought (and there may be more) about the relationship between Genesis and the totality of the Christian faith, and I'm curious as to why you see things the way you do.

One camps says that if we can't believe the opening pages of the Bible, then we can't believe anything else in the Bible, especially Jesus' claims and his Resurrection. But if we can demonstrate that Genesis is reliable then we can at least begin to trust the rest of Scripture and have more faith that Jesus is who He says He is and that what's recorded about his works and His resurrection can be shown to be reliable.

The other camp says that if we don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then what's written in Genesis doesn't really matter. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then we can take a look at Genesis and begin to see what it means and why/how it applies to our lives.

What is your approach to this, and why? I fall into the latter camp, because if you prove creation, then you've given credence to Judaism and Islam just as much as to Christianity. But if you prove the resurrection, then you have a reason to find a reason in Genesis.

I understand that some approach things differently. I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks in advance for your input and insight.

To many people, including me, Christian faith does not start with either one of your model. For those people who started their faith the third way, they can accept both your cases at the same time.

 

[Knee V]

To many people, including me, Christian faith does not start with either one of your model. For those people who started their faith the third way, they can accept both your cases at the same time.

By "the third way", are you referring to what vossler said, or to something else?

 

[Knee V]

I would amend your assessment and state I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God and therefore one cannot dismiss any of it as false or less important as another. This is supported by the Bible itself which states in

2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
​

So if the entire Bible is God breathed then that means Genesis thru Revelation is true, no exceptions. This means there is no need to 'prove' anything but just to believe. There is no false competition between the creation account and whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I take it you would not fall into either one of the camps that I put forth in the OP?

The reason I ask is because it seems, from what I've seen in my lurkings here, that some would make a correct understanding of creation as at least part of the foundation of the Christian faith. Perhaps I've misunderstood?

 

[vossler]

Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I take it you would not fall into either one of the camps that I put forth in the OP?

That's correct.

The reason I ask is because it seems, from what I've seen in my lurkings here, that some would make a correct understanding of creation as at least part of the foundation of the Christian faith. Perhaps I've misunderstood?

That's correct, it certainly is for me.

 

[theFijian]

The other camp says that if we don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then what's written in Genesis doesn't really matter. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then we can take a look at Genesis and begin to see what it means and why/how it applies to our lives.

What camp believes that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead? I've not encountered anyone in that camp around here. Nor anyone who says that Genesis 'doesnt matter'. There are of course those who would ascribe those views to others as it suits their ends to construct such a strawman.

 

[Assyrian]

What camp believes that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead? I've not encountered anyone in that camp around here. Nor anyone who says that Genesis 'doesnt matter'. There are of course those who would ascribe those views to others as it suits their ends to construct such a strawman.

I think you may have misunderstood knee-v there. There was an 'if' in that statement. I think even Paul would agree that if Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith, and interpretation of Genesis, is in vain. I wouldn't say the interpretation of Genesis doesn't matter though, because whether you believe in the resurrection or not, the creationist campaign against science is really dangerous.

 

[theFijian]

I think you may have misunderstood knee-v there. There was an 'if' in that statement. I think even Paul would agree that if Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith, and interpretation of Genesis, is in vain. I wouldn't say the interpretation of Genesis doesn't matter though, because whether you believe in the resurrection or not, the creationist campaign against science is really dangerous.

Actually i did see the 'if' but still misread what he was saying In that case I agree entirely, if Christ is not risen then we are indeed to be pitied more than all men! In that passage (1 Cor 15) Paul does on to explain how how through a man (Adam) we are all sinful and so in Adam all die, in Christ all (who belong to Christ) shall be made alive. Yet significantly Paul says that if Christ is not risen then our our faith is in vain, not that if we do not accept the doctrine in original sin (which I happen to) or if we do not believe in a literal historical Adam (which I do happen to) that our faith is in vain.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually i did see the 'if' but still misread what he was saying In that case I agree entirely, if Christ is not risen then we are indeed to be pitied more than all men! In that passage (1 Cor 15) Paul does on to explain how how through a man (Adam) we are all sinful and so in Adam all die, in Christ all (who belong to Christ) shall be made alive. Yet significantly Paul says that if Christ is not risen then our our faith is in vain, not that if we do not accept the doctrine in original sin (which I happen to) or if we do not believe in a literal historical Adam (which I do happen to) that our faith is in vain.

For such a supposed hard liner, Paul was surprisingly open to a diverse range of view and interpretations in the church, even things he personally disagreed with. We see this in issues that came up like head covering, observing holy days, vegetarianism. Christ was his core message, and living a Christ like life. Oh and not circumcising gentiles or sleeping with your step mother.

 

[juvenissun]

By "the third way", are you referring to what vossler said, or to something else?

Yes, for example, personal experience.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I would amend your assessment and state I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God and therefore one cannot dismiss any of it as false or less important as another. This is supported by the Bible itself which states in

2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
​

So if the entire Bible is God breathed then that means Genesis thru Revelation is true, no exceptions. This means there is no need to 'prove' anything but just to believe. There is no false competition between the creation account and whether Jesus rose from the dead.

I don't really see 2 Timothy 3:15 defending a view of scripture that assumes the Bible is equal throughout.

 

[crawfish]

I would amend your assessment and state I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God and therefore one cannot dismiss any of it as false or less important as another. This is supported by the Bible itself which states in

2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
​

So if the entire Bible is God breathed then that means Genesis thru Revelation is true, no exceptions. This means there is no need to 'prove' anything but just to believe. There is no false competition between the creation account and whether Jesus rose from the dead.

That's great! My next great scientific endeavor is going to be to find all those storehouses where God keeps the snow and hail, as per Job 38:22. Silly science claims it knows how both are formed naturally, but obviously I can just believe the bible and not worry about such things.

 

[juvenissun]

That's great! My next great scientific endeavor is going to be to find all those storehouses where God keeps the snow and hail, as per Job 38:22. Silly science claims it knows how both are formed naturally, but obviously I can just believe the bible and not worry about such things.

God keeps the snow and hail on the earth. The problem is to know where are the places for them. Do you know why (not how) do we have more snow in New York this year than other years? I don't think anybody knows. Job 38:22 is valid thousands years ago. It is still valid today.

Yes, we do not have to worry about it. If someone did, he did that in order to know God, or may be to earn a living.

 

[vossler]

I don't really see 2 Timothy 3:15 defending a view of scripture that assumes the Bible is equal throughout.

I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion of equality, I make no claim in that regard. What I do claim or adhere to is that all Scripture exists to edify and guide us in righteousness.

 

[vossler]

That's great! My next great scientific endeavor is going to be to find all those storehouses where God keeps the snow and hail, as per Job 38:22. Silly science claims it knows how both are formed naturally, but obviously I can just believe the bible and not worry about such things.

You are certainly right not to worry about such things.

 

[gluadys]

God keeps the snow and hail on the earth. The problem is to know where are the places for them. Do you know why (not how) do we have more snow in New York this year than other years? I don't think anybody knows. Job 38:22 is valid thousands years ago. It is still valid today.

Yes, we do not have to worry about it. If someone did, he did that in order to know God, or may be to earn a living.

Global warming.

Really cold air is dry air. It can't hold much moisture. But as winter temperatures get warmer (especially close to the ocean) the atmosphere holds more water vapour and you get a lot more precipitation. In winter that means a lot more snow than usual. Until even winter temperatures go above freezing, anyway.

 

[Kennesaw42]

"the creationist campaign against science is really dangerous."

This is classic befuddlement logic.

First you set up a strawman, viz. "there is a 'creationist' campaign against science." Well, that's a cinch because setting up a strawman is about as intellectually challenging as pouring the proverbial liquid out of the proverbial footwear.

Second, you employ that favored tactic of totalitarians, viz. you instill fear: "is really dangerous."

Well, shucks, nobody wants to be doing anything dangerous.

There is, in plain fact, no "creationist campaign" against science. What there is is a creationist counter-movement against the monolithic evolution lobby that, having pontificated for so many decades without being worrisomely opposed now finds itself embarrassingly on the defensive, not because of any "creationist campaign," but because of recent scientific breakthroughs (such as what we now know in the field of microbiology) that undermine, not to say invalidate, the claims of evolution.

What is the supposed "danger" here? Is it that TEs will be embarrassed in front of their evolutionist buddies because many whom they call brother are questioning the reigning orthodoxy? Is it that our little children will lose their faith in SCIENCE? (God forbid! Call for the king's horses and call for the kings men! Is nothing sacrosanct anymore?)

No, none of the above. the only "danger" is that a lot of smart people might have to rethink some of their cherished beliefs on origins. Or will that lead to rioting in the streets?

 

[philadiddle]

"the creationist campaign against science is really dangerous."

This is classic befuddlement logic.

First you set up a strawman, viz. "there is a 'creationist' campaign against science." Well, that's a cinch because setting up a strawman is about as intellectually challenging as pouring the proverbial liquid out of the proverbial footwear.

Second, you employ that favored tactic of totalitarians, viz. you instill fear: "is really dangerous."

Well, shucks, nobody wants to be doing anything dangerous.

There is, in plain fact, no "creationist campaign" against science. What there is is a creationist counter-movement against the monolithic evolution lobby that, having pontificated for so many decades without being worrisomely opposed now finds itself embarrassingly on the defensive, not because of any "creationist campaign," but because of recent scientific breakthroughs (such as what we now know in the field of microbiology) that undermine, not to say invalidate, the claims of evolution.

What is the supposed "danger" here? Is it that TEs will be embarrassed in front of their evolutionist buddies because many whom they call brother are questioning the reigning orthodoxy? Is it that our little children will lose their faith in SCIENCE? (God forbid! Call for the king's horses and call for the kings men! Is nothing sacrosanct anymore?)

No, none of the above. the only "danger" is that a lot of smart people might have to rethink some of their cherished beliefs on origins. Or will that lead to rioting in the streets?

I had a go with you a few weeks ago. You were preaching the same "evil conspiracy" message then too. Have you been able to support this with any evidence yet or is it still just your imagination?

 

[Kennesaw42]

Logic? Coherency even?

You had a "go" with me? What kind of language is that?

I "preach" and you don't? My imagination?

If you fancy another "go" with me I hope you will do me the courtesy of staying on topic. The quotation I responded to was totally unsubstantiated and uncalled for, a cheap shot out of nowhere, calling into question the motives and character of creationists. I thought that kind of thing was discouraged here.