Genesis 1

[mark kennedy]

I spend a great deal of time on the creation/evolution forum arguing for creationism. I have dealt with the scientific details for well over a year and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the subject based on Genesis 1. Some of the questions I am currently pondering are:

1) Is Genesis one an historical account or is it just elaborate poetry?
2) Can we cross referance Genesis one with anything in the New Testament that would make it essential doctrine?
3) Is the Gospel tied to the Genesis account or can we accept the ressurection without taking Genesis one literally.

I am especially interested in expostions of specific texts related and of course Genesis one itself.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[filosofer]

1) The Hebrew style of Genesis 1 (and essentially all of chapters 1-12) is prose, historical narrative, not poetry.

2) John 1:1-18 and Colossians 1:13-20 are the most direct because creation is associated with salvation. See also the connection in Romans 8:1-25.

3) Because creation (and the corresponding fall into sin) is intimately connected with salvation. If there is no sin, or it is considered part of the evolutionary process, then salvation is not possible, nor even desirable.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Mark Kennedy,

The NT is replete with references to the Genesis account and all believed that it was to be taken literally. Ask a question of Genesis and I will try to give you a corresponding answer from the NT.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[2Timothy2]

Just one quick ref off the top of my head

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]


I don't think we can say one must hold to the literal meaning of Gen 1 in order to truly accept the gospel and have true saving faith. It may be a learning process to accept the truth of Gen 1

Another thing is that Gen 1 may simply be a summary of sorts, although still absolutely true. There is an interesting parallel between days 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6 as to what was created/made. Just something to think about.

Also, one can hold to the literal meaning of Gen 1 and be YEC or OEC.

 

[mythbuster]

Mark, the emphesis is mine.
I, like you, have debated this subject.
This may be what you are looking for. As far as I can tell the citation below is correct because the accout in Genesis does not match up well with any other scenario.

Genesis is a book with Christ as the center, and Christ is life to the people whom He restored from the fall. Why does this book give us such a record of creation in the first two chapters? Why does it give us the biographies of eight persons in the following forty-eight chapters? We need a deeper understanding. The first two chapters appear to be a record of creation, but this is superficial. The underlying thought is focused on life. These two chapters are a record of life. They are too simple and too brief to be an adequate account of creation. Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended by God to be a record of creation, but a revelation of life.
Look into these chapters. First, it mentions that God created the universe, and that the universe was ruined, becoming waste, empty, and full of darkness. Then, the Spirit of God came in to brood in order to produce life. Following the Spirit of life came the light, also for producing life. After this, the air was made to divide the waters of death. Then the land emerged out of the death waters. The land appeared for the purpose of generating life, and immediately every kind of plant life was produced. Then came the animal life in the water, the animal life in the air, and the animal life on the earth, and, eventually, the human life. Following the human life is the divine life, indicated by the tree of life. Thus, we can see that these two chapters, strictly speaking, are not a record of creation, but of life.

Quote is from Witness Lee,
Life study of Genesis
message one

 

[mark kennedy]

I would have been back sooner but I am into a formal debate that is taking a lot of my attention. It is just refreshing to hear from belivers after spending so much time sparing with evolutionists. Before I get into an expostion of Genesis 1 and 2 I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the importance of Genesis to the Gospel message. We hear a lot about natural selection, aka 'survival of the fittest' but very little, if anything about what Darwin called 'mutual relations'. When I found it in Origin of Species it instantly reminded me of this passage:

"Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Eph. 5:21)

Here is the passage from Origin of Species that caught my attention:

"No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. "

On the Origin of Speicies

There is a principle that runs throughout Scripture that is expressed in a number of different ways. The Golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Jesus discussion of who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven will be servant to all, and of course Paul's exortation to submit to one another only work when they are mutual.

This principle is in nature and I am convinced that it reflects the mutual submission within the Trinity. I have heard quite enough of survival of the fittest where species compete with one another for dwindling resources. It is the mutual relations of nature where bees pollenate flowers and flowers feed bees that demonstrates how life is supposed to work.

What, you may be wondering, does this have to do with Genesis? Throughout the creation narrative when God created something it says that 'He saw that it was good'. The first time it mentions that something that is not good it was the fact that Adam was alone. I just wanted to get that off my chest before I put together an expostion of Genesis 1 and how it dovetails into the New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[issa]

www.reasons.org - solid scientific evidence for creation here.

 

[justified]

1) The Hebrew style of Genesis 1 (and essentially all of chapters 1-12) is prose, historical narrative, not poetry.

2) John 1:1-18 and Colossians 1:13-20 are the most direct because creation is associated with salvation. See also the connection in Romans 8:1-25.

3) Because creation (and the corresponding fall into sin) is intimately connected with salvation. If there is no sin, or it is considered part of the evolutionary process, then salvation is not possible, nor even desirable.

There have been several books written on how (1) is entirely incorrect. If you would like to debate the Hebrew with me, feel free. The metre of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is steady; there is an inclusio; it is quite obviously a self-contained composition. It's even been called a hymn.

This does not mean that it is not historical; but it does suggest some important points.

 

[FreezBee]

... We hear a lot about natural selection, aka 'survival of the fittest' but very little, if anything about what Darwin called 'mutual relations'.

Hi Mark!

Just a minor point here. Many creationists make the identification "natural selection" = "survival of the fittest", but it's worth noting that "survival of the fittest" is from Herbet Spencer's "social Darwinism", which has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

With the term "natural selection" Charles Darwin meant that the laws for adaptation are natural, that is within nature itself, not outside of nature.

Natural selection has no moral implications as such, unless you want to reduce human behavior to genetics.

But as humans we are born into a pre-existing society, completely independent of our genes. "The struggle for survival" in a society is part of that society, not of our biology.

When I found it in Origin of Species it instantly reminded me of this passage:

"Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Eph. 5:21)

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes released in 1651 the book "Leviathan", in which he suggests a slight modification on this. Hobbes operates with a "natural state" of everybody fighting against everybody, but since no one is so strong as to be able to win over all the others, no one call feel secure in this state. So Hobbes imagines a covenant between the individuals that they will live peacefully with each other - not out of fear, but out of reason - and choose among them an individual, the Sovereign, that is to be an embodiment of that covenant - a God on earth to keep the peace.

"Leviathan" was written among other reasons in order to counter the idea that humans could do nothing except await divine intervention. Hobbes claimed that we can, if we agree with others to keep peace.

On the background of civil war in Britain and the 30 years war on the Continent, there could be good arguments for desperation, and we have to admit that the time since hasn't been all that peaceful

I write this just to show that it wasn't Charles Darwin that invented "survival of the fittest" or #struggle for survival".

Here is the passage from Origin of Species that caught my attention:

"No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. "

The "mutual relations" here comprise such relations as between predators and their prey and (your own example below) between bees and flowers, I would think, that is between different species. Humans are one species!

There is a principle that runs throughout Scripture that is expressed in a number of different ways. The Golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Jesus discussion of who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven will be servant to all, and of course Paul's exortation to submit to one another only work when they are mutual.

The golden rule is, I believe, known with some variety among all cultures. But again it's a rule for humans, which are one species, and therefore has nothing really to do with natural selection.

This principle is in nature and I am convinced that it reflects the mutual submission within the Trinity.

Not sure I understand you here - please elaborate, if possible.

I have heard quite enough of survival of the fittest where species compete with one another for dwindling resources. It is the mutual relations of nature where bees pollenate flowers and flowers feed bees that demonstrates how life is supposed to work.

Yes, except I wouldn't say life is supposed to work in any particular way. There are mutual dependencies among species, and there are mutual dependencies among humans within a society - but be careful, when stretching such analogies.

What, you may be wondering, does this have to do with Genesis? Throughout the creation narrative when God created something it says that 'He saw that it was good'. The first time it mentions that something that is not good it was the fact that Adam was alone. I just wanted to get that off my chest before I put together an expostion of Genesis 1 and how it dovetails into the New Testament.

Yes, and then God first paraded the animals before Adam, but none of them were a "suitable helper" for Adam. So God created the woman, and everything has been not-good ever since!

I'm looking forward to your exposition assuming that you will take that little fact into consideration


- FreeezBee

 

[daveleau]

1) Is Genesis one an historical account or is it just elaborate poetry?
2) Can we cross referance Genesis one with anything in the New Testament that would make it essential doctrine?
3) Is the Gospel tied to the Genesis account or can we accept the ressurection without taking Genesis one literally.

1) There are several theories that take Genesis literally, yet fit with the natural revelation of God through evolutionary evidence. Do not confuse this, though. I am talking about the factual evidence, not the far-reaching theories based on this evidence. Speciation has little evidence other than postulations by scientists. Allegorical or figurative language should only be assumed when Scripture points to it being such. Genesis 1 does not have the markers for this sort of genre. So, it is most likely a historical narrative.

2) The key is to know that God made the world ex nihilo (out of nothing). The rest about how He did it is theory and debatable. Do not let it shake your faith as it did me when I took my evolution class on my way to my BS Biology. John 1 is the first passage that comes to mind that treats the Gen 1 account, but as with all passages on creation, it is a vague issue that discusses God's cretive action while leaving out the details.

3) Many can accept Christ while holding everything outside of the Salvific passages as in error or as allegory/myth. Are they saved? Only God knows. This is not recommended, though, as doubt of one passage leads to doubting of others until the World's reason prevails and all views of the Supernatural God are removed from our belief. It can be resolved. Read up on it from good Christian conservatives to get the insight. Evolutionists are very good at sounding convincing when refuting an argument. But, they cut corners and make assumptions that God is limited. Know this and don't let them shake you. If you doubt the first chapter of Scripture, then it is human nature to begin doubting the rest.

 

[regina123]

For the most part two councils Hippo in 393a.d. and Carthage in 397a.d. determined the collection of Holy Spripture aka the Bible. To this day the Catholic Church has never added or removed any of the Books of the Bible since those councils.

Luther during the Protesant Reformation did remove certain books which are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called "the Song of the Three Children". These were deliberately cut out of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament). I don't think this has changed for the protestant chuch.

It is also my understanding(please correct me if i'm wrong) that these same books are not recognized by present day Judaism because the original of these books were lost when the temple was destroyed in 70a.d. and left only the Greek translations.

It will take a little more thought to answer your other questions and will gladly pass the buck on those.

 

[regina123]

Hi Mark!

Just a minor point here. Many creationists make the identification "natural selection" = "survival of the fittest", but it's worth noting that "survival of the fittest" is from Herbet Spencer's "social Darwinism", which has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

With the term "natural selection" Charles Darwin meant that the laws for adaptation are natural, that is within nature itself, not outside of nature.

Natural selection has no moral implications as such, unless you want to reduce human behavior to genetics.

But as humans we are born into a pre-existing society, completely independent of our genes. "The struggle for survival" in a society is part of that society, not of our biology.



The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes released in 1651 the book "Leviathan", in which he suggests a slight modification on this. Hobbes operates with a "natural state" of everybody fighting against everybody, but since no one is so strong as to be able to win over all the others, no one call feel secure in this state. So Hobbes imagines a covenant between the individuals that they will live peacefully with each other - not out of fear, but out of reason - and choose among them an individual, the Sovereign, that is to be an embodiment of that covenant - a God on earth to keep the peace.

"Leviathan" was written among other reasons in order to counter the idea that humans could do nothing except await divine intervention. Hobbes claimed that we can, if we agree with others to keep peace.

On the background of civil war in Britain and the 30 years war on the Continent, there could be good arguments for desperation, and we have to admit that the time since hasn't been all that peaceful

I write this just to show that it wasn't Charles Darwin that invented "survival of the fittest" or #struggle for survival".



The "mutual relations" here comprise such relations as between predators and their prey and (your own example below) between bees and flowers, I would think, that is between different species. Humans are one species!



The golden rule is, I believe, known with some variety among all cultures. But again it's a rule for humans, which are one species, and therefore has nothing really to do with natural selection.



Not sure I understand you here - please elaborate, if possible.



Yes, except I wouldn't say life is supposed to work in any particular way. There are mutual dependencies among species, and there are mutual dependencies among humans within a society - but be careful, when stretching such analogies.



Yes, and then God first paraded the animals before Adam, but none of them were a "suitable helper" for Adam. So God created the woman, and everything has been not-good ever since!

I'm looking forward to your exposition assuming that you will take that little fact into consideration


- FreeezBee

There are different answers for the different examples you gave. Abstaining from pork was part of the Old Testament dietary laws; at the very beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, you find an explicit explanation of why Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary laws. Jesus also addressed this issue of the difference between following the Law and following God the many times that He and his disciples were accused of breaking these laws by dining with sinners and by working on the Sabbath. The letters of St. Paul also examine why Christians aren't bound by other Old Testament laws, such as circumcision (e.g. Romans 4).

Jesus spoke about divorce, and (by inference) about pre-marital sex.

On the other hand, it is felt that Paul's admonition to women to keep their heads covered in church (1 Cor 11:5) was meant specifically for the Corinthians that he was addressing. But I admit that I'm not clear on that particular point myself.