Genesis

[Assyrian]

I keep seeing all these arguments about the Chinese and Americans, etc... Go back and read Genesis, the world did not disperse into nationalities until after the flood at Babel.

If you look at the nations Genesis says are descended from Noah, they dispersed across the Ancient Near East from Ethiopia to Persia. There is no suggestion that nations further afield are descended from them, or any hint in Genesis that they even existed. We are back to the question of whether God scattered Noah's descendants over the whole 'earth' or over the whole 'land'.

Genesis does not say that Chinese, Aborigines or Native Americans are descended from Noah, or that they only migrated to those regions after the flood.

 

[shernren]

Your sources make secular assumptions. They reak of evolutionary thinking. I'm using the bible to look at history and most TE's disregard the bible as just stories, so...we'll never agree.

I'd take issue with "disregard the Bible as just stories". To take the Bible as a story or a collection of stories is not "disregarding" it. Stories are powerful. History is not as powerful as a good story; in fact, I'd say the only history many people remember is history they learned not as history, not boring "In 1759 so-and-so did this-and-that (cite A, B, C)", but as "Once upon a time" stories. If the Bible were written with the purpose, content, and style of a history textbook, it would hardly be the Bible any more and nobody (but historians) would read it.

 

[jds1977]

The tower of Babel is long after the dispersion of human beings around the world and therefore is not about all people but only those the Hebrews are interested in, their lineage.

No...The dispersion happened AFTER the tower of Babel. If you trace the family geneaology of Gen. 10, 11, you see where the major nationalities of the world descended (Japheth-Europeans Gen. 10:5, etc...). Chapter 11 deals w/ the sin of the people because they did not disperse and God confounded their language and spread them.

rmwilliamsll, sorry you were offended by the word "reek", I'll rephrase: The 2 sources you gave are very evolution-biased, of which I am in total disagreement with. If I gave you sources such as AIG, ICR, etc... you wouldn't give much credit just as I don't yours. sorry, just being honest.

assumptions are a very particular form of principle, they are unsupported, unprovable, but necessary in order to do the theorizing.

True...I just begin w/ the assumption that the Word of God is accurate unlike most on this thread.

The techniques used to date the very antiquity of the Scriptures and illuminate early Judeo-Christian communities are the same used to date human establishments elsewhere in the world. You can't have it both ways.

What are you saying here? does biblical archeology date their civilizations back just a few thousand years and using the same methods, secular archeologists date civilizations back 10s of thousands of years? what you'll probably find is that we all start w/ assumptions. Evolutionists start w/ the assumption that we're millions of years old, whereas YEC's start w/ assuming the bible as accurate. I would like to see some proof on this though.

but the Chinese civilization extends back fully 10,000 years before Christ without interruption.

Proof? Sources? if this is your opinion, please state that. The earliest Chinese history I've found is the age of the 5 rulers dated back to approx. 2700-2200bc...Interesting, that would date to around the age of the flood. http://www.chinapage.com/history1.html http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html

 

[jds1977]

There is no suggestion that nations further afield are descended from them, or any hint in Genesis that they even existed.

Read Gen. 10, 11, and no, it doesn't say anything about Chinese, Aboriginals or Indians, but it's not hard to figure out that when God judges all the earth, He judged it all (Gen. 6:7,6:12,7:4 etc..) So, at Babel, God spread them out just as he commanded them to do after the flood.

I'd take issue with "disregard the Bible as just stories". To take the Bible as a story or a collection of stories is not "disregarding" it. Stories are powerful. History is not as powerful as a good story; in fact, I'd say the only history many people remember is history they learned not as history, not boring "In 1759 so-and-so did this-and-that (cite A, B, C)", but as "Once upon a time" stories. If the Bible were written with the purpose, content, and style of a history textbook, it would hardly be the Bible any more and nobody (but historians) would read it.

No offence, but the Word of God does not begin w/ "Once upon a time". The bible is very specific to say that "In the beginning God created". So, either He did exactly what it says or Moses is a liar. Either there was a man named Adam who sinned or we're believing a fairy-tale gospel. Jesus said in John 5:47, If you can't believe Moses' writings, you can't believe my words. So, Here's your dilemma: Is Moses a liar? and was Jesus a madman who died for no reason?

 

[Mallon]

What are you saying here? does biblical archeology date their civilizations back just a few thousand years and using the same methods, secular archeologists date civilizations back 10s of thousands of years?

I am saying your dichotomy between "biblical archaeology" and "secular archaeology" is a false one. The archaeology used to date Bible-time civilizations and pre-Bible civilizations is the same.

what you'll probably find is that we all start w/ assumptions. Evolutionists start w/ the assumption that we're millions of years old, whereas YEC's start w/ assuming the bible as accurate.

While I don't dispute the YEC assumption that the Bible is scientifically accurate (even the Bible does not lay claim to this), your statement that scientists assume the ancient age of the earth is just plain false. Deep time is a conclusion based on evidence. It is not an assumption.

I would like to see some proof on this though.

Proof of what? Have you tried doing any of your own research?

 

[jds1977]

While I don't dispute the YEC assumption that the Bible is scientifically accurate (even the Bible does not lay claim to this),

Does the bible NEED to lay claim to this? Genesis doesn't say..."maybe" God did this or that...it just says He did it. Either you believe it or you don't. Either you believe Jesus Christ or you don't. Does the bible prove God's existence, or does it say that "He is"? He's the Self-existing One, He said let it be and it was.

your statement that scientists assume the ancient age of the earth is just plain false. Deep time is a conclusion based on evidence. It is not an assumption

ok...give me some examples of your solid proof evidence. All evidence is viewed w/ assumptions that the earth is really old or the earth is really young. The only thing that would end this debate is if we found a stamp somewhere that said..." Made by God in Year_____". YEC's look at the evidence through a biblical perspective while evolutionists look at evidence through man's perspective.
Here's another quote from Jesus...Mark 10:6: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Is the earth billions of years older than us? or are we 5 days younger than the earth? Which will you believe...the writings of Moses, Peter, Paul, and Jesus or man's theories?

Proof of what? Have you tried doing any of your own research?

I believe the burden of proof is on you...you made the claim.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I have started this thread to explore the creation.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

i have heard theorys of a layer of water over the atmosphere causing higher levels of oxygen to be present, causing animals and plants to be enormuous. This could explain lots of things, dinosaurs, the amout of coal found, they say the earth is billions of years old, one thing they base this one is the plantlife, they say it would take billions of years to create the amount of coal that is present today. Speculating of course if there was the same amount of planlife as today.

But if the trees were bigger, plants bushier, not to mention there was more land above water then, therfore more plants growing on it. The theory states it is possible to have the amount of coal, ok, enough from me, what do you think

Not to mention that God could have created the world with that much in the earth to begin with!

 

[Mallon]

Does the bible NEED to lay claim to this?

Yes.

Genesis doesn't say..."maybe" God did this or that...it just says He did it. Either you believe it or you don't.

The Bible says many things that I imagine even YOU do not believe. The Bible says rabbits chew their cud. The Bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. The Bible says that all kingdoms of the earth can be seen from a high mountain. Do you believe these things to be true? Or do you believe 1 Corinthians 2:13 when it says God's spoken truths are spiritual, and not necessarily scientific?

Either you believe Jesus Christ or you don't.

Don't equate a sub-literal reading of Genesis with a lack of faith in Christ. It's unbecoming of a Christian.

ok...give me some examples of your solid proof evidence.

The fact that you want scientific "proof" tells me that you do not understand what science does. Science is not in the business of proving anything. It can approximate truth, but never attain it.

All evidence is viewed w/ assumptions that the earth is really old or the earth is really young.

Again, I am telling you that the antiquity of the earth is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on the evidence. Read any of the founding works by James Hutton or Charles Lyell. I challenge you. You will find the "proof" you are looking for. I refuse to do your homework for you.

The only thing that would end this debate is if we found a stamp somewhere that said..." Made by God in Year_____". YEC's look at the evidence through a biblical perspective while evolutionists look at evidence through man's perspective.

A "biblical perspective" is inherently man's perspective since it requires man to interpret the Scriptures. Don't fool yourself. You are not God.

Here's another quote from Jesus...Mark 10:6: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Is the earth billions of years older than us? or are we 5 days younger than the earth? Which will you believe...the writings of Moses, Peter, Paul, and Jesus or man's theories?
I believe the burden of proof is on you...you made the claim.

Jesus referenced Genesis because the young age of the earth was the common understanding of the time. See my "Letter to a pastor" thread below.
The burden of proof rests on those challenging established principle. You cannot support the scientific inerrancy of the Bible by referencing the Bible. That's circular logic.

 

[vossler]

Science is not in the business of proving anything. It can approximate truth, but never attain it.

Science doesn't claim the ability to prove anything or know truth then why do some Christians allow it to change truth? How does an approximation change truth?

 

[Mallon]

Science doesn't claim the ability to prove anything or know truth then why do some Christians allow it to change truth? How does an approximation change truth?

Change what truth? How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is "truth"?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

True...I just begin w/ the assumption that the Word of God is accurate unlike most on this thread.

no, you assume that YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the text of the Scriptures says is MODERN SCIENTIFICALLY and HISTORICALLY accurate and distinguish this from any other interpretation which you insist is not taking the Bible as accurately as do you.

 

[vossler]

Change what truth? How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is "truth"?

That's kind of what I expected to hear. In other words there is no truth because its all up to our own interpretation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

.give me some examples of your solid proof evidence. All evidence is viewed w/ assumptions that the earth is really old or the earth is really young.

temperature of the earth's core, the fact that it has a particular crystaline structure and the currents and eddies in liquid around it that create our earth's magnetic field. There is no assumption of old age in this data, the age is a conclusion. Likewise several dozen to hundreds of different types of radioactive dating are evidence for an old earth, not that the age of the earth is an assumption used to run radioactive dating.

i don't use the phrase "solid proof evidence" but rather well evidenced, because solid and proof are really not scientific terms but are confusing to people who do not have a scientific education and assume their normal common sense meaning, which is not applicable in science. science is always provisional and tentative, yet the evidence for the age of the earth and of the universe is beyond reasonable doubt, nonetheless.

but the important thing is learning how to distinguish an assumption from a conclusion and why they are very different things.

 

[Mallon]

That's kind of what I expected to hear. In other words there is no truth because its all up to our own interpretation.

The Bible clearly emphasizes the spiritual truths to which we must all adhere, a faith in Christ's resurrection, most prominently.
Do you claim to be able to convey God's intended truths inerrantly? Are you God? Do you know God's thoughts?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Change what truth? How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is "truth"?
That's kind of what I expected to hear. In other words there is no truth because its all up to our own interpretation.

the conclusion in italics does not follow from the statement in bold

the question is how do you know your interpretation is the truth? to the exclusion of other interpretations. just because we must extract meaning from a text and this meaning is our interpretation does not infer that some interpretations are not more faithful to, or more evidenced by the text. Only that interpretations need to be compared to interpretations. Your interpretation is not somehow priviledged, except in your own mind, you must present evidence that it really does conform more closely to the text or is more faithful to the text than others. your alignment of your particular interpretation to the very truth that God holds in His mind does not follow simply because it is your interpretation. unless of course you claim great and more certain access to God than anyone else, if that is so, then you ought to honestly state that position, not hide behind the idea that your interpretation is not really an interpretation but is really what the text says. nonsense. you have a meaning in your head, an interpretation, just as any human being does when reading a text.

 

[jds1977]

Wow...I'm quite amazed at the "so-called" Christians who can not believe the bible and choose to spiritualize even the clearest historical accounts. If you knew anything of Hebrew grammar, you would know that it was written as an actual historical account and not some parable. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/questions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0617.asp

Don't equate a sub-literal reading of Genesis with a lack of faith in Christ. It's unbecoming of a Christian.

read John 5:47

The fact that you want scientific "proof" tells me that you do not understand what science does. Science is not in the business of proving anything. It can approximate truth, but never attain it.

you said deep time was a conclusion based on evidence...Again, where's your proof or "evidence". You're giving me your beliefs w/out proof which equals..your "beliefs"

Read any of the founding works by James Hutton or Charles Lyell. I challenge you. You will find the "proof" you are looking for. I refuse to do your homework for you.

The burden of proof and homework is on you not me...you're the one who made the statement. Besides, I do my homework in AIG, ICR, CSE, with people like Henry Morris, Ken Ham, etc... so, I'm sure we'll agree to disagree because my source is better than your source and this book is better than that book blah blah blah...Do you get my drift?

A "biblical perspective" is inherently man's perspective since it requires man to interpret the Scriptures. Don't fool yourself. You are not God.

Notice...I've never claimed to be God and you forget 2 Peter 1:20. Even a child can see that Genesis is a literal account. Only adults w/ their evolutionary doctrine could put the idea of evolution in the bible. Apart from outside influence, the bible reads as was intended. The Spirit is our main source of help in interpreting the truth (John 16:13) and the best commentary on the bible...is the bible, so proper hermeneutics is also key.

The burden of proof rests on those challenging established principle

Name one biblical character or early church father who did not believe in a young earth. The bible IS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE. so...Again the burden of proof lies on you. But, this debate will turn out to be a "my source is more reliable than your source" debate. So, again the bottom line is...is the Word of God true or untrue?

You cannot support the scientific inerrancy of the Bible by referencing the Bible. That's circular logic.

I was giving you a history account not scientific account...please re-read the posts. If you want science in the bible...there's plenty...such as http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml or just google scientific facts in the bible.
I challenge you to read the articles listed at the top of this post. Read w/ an open mind and ask God to reveal truth to you. This will probably be my last post on this thread unless you have a specific question for me. I have made my stand on the Word of God and no-one here will change my beliefs, so it's probably an unfruitful debate. 1Tim. 6:20,21: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[jds1977]

In reply to rmwilliamsll old earth evidence:
The decaying magnetic field limit's earth's age to less than billions.
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years not billions. I believe that during the flood, while the "fountains of the deep were broken up", most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.
Dividing the ammount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.
Niagra falls erosion rate (4-7' per year) indicates an age less than 8400 yrs. Don't forget the flood could have eroded half of the 7.5 mile long Niagra river Gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.
These are just some issues to consider.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wow...I'm quite amazed at the "so-called" Christians who can not believe the bible and choose to spiritualize even the clearest historical accounts. If you knew anything of Hebrew grammar, you would know that it was written as an actual historical account and not some parable.

perhaps you will present this Hebrew grammar data for us that shows it was written as an actual historical account for those of us who only have a few years of university and seminary Hebrew and must have slept through those classes.

While you are doing this, perhaps you can explain what the ancient Hebrews thought about history and how that is similar or different from our modern notions of history and historical writing.

your second link
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0617.asp

It matters not what you see (or wish to see). The Hebrew grammar unambiguously shows that Genesis 1–11 is historical narrative, in exactly the same genre as Genesis 12–50 which no one doubts is intended as historical. For example, in typical Hebrew narratives, the first verb is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives). Genesis 1 starts with first verb: bara’ (‘created&#8217—qatal, then a series of waw consecutives: wayyomer (‘And … said&#8217, wayehi (‘and there was&#8217. Also, Genesis 1 contains many ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined, just as we would expect from other historical portions of the Bible.

does not say what the evidence is but asserts that the Hebrew grammar means historical. exactly what are these historical "markers"?

qatal does not really conform to our past tense. afaik, there is no such thing as "historical perfect" or "historical narrative" grammar constructs. especially given the problematic nature of relating our modern Indo-European language verb tenses to ancient Semitic language forms.

read John 5:47

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

this is the response to:
Don't equate a sub-literal reading of Genesis with a lack of faith in Christ. It's unbecoming of a Christian.
so you need to show:
1-That Moses wrote Gen1-5.
2-that a literal, modern historical and scientific interpretation is what Moses had in mind when he wrote it
3-That Jesus is referring to these chapters and this particular interpretation of Gen 1-5 in these words.
and furthermore that these chapters are referring to Jesus and are meant to tell the 1st C. listeners to Jesus about Him.

Even a child can see that Genesis is a literal account.
actually when i first read Genesis to one of my kids when they were very young, they asked, "how can a snake talk?"

Apart from outside influence, the bible reads as was intended.
intended to whom? 20thC science and history saturated Americans in fundamentalist churches?

 

[Mallon]

Wow...I'm quite amazed at the "so-called" Christians who can not believe the bible and choose to spiritualize even the clearest historical accounts.

That one comment there alone is liable to have you removed from these forums. Who are you to judge who has Christ in their heart and who doesn't? You claim to know the Bible, but you refuse to excercise the message of Matthew 7.

If you knew anything of Hebrew grammar, you would know that it was written as an actual historical account and not some parable.

We've dealt with this here before. There are reasons for and against interpreting Genesis literally. The repeating verse structure of Genesis makes me wonder ("And God said... And there was evening and there was morning, the Xth day.")

read John 5:47

I do not deny what Moses wrote about Christ.

you said deep time was a conclusion based on evidence...Again, where's your proof or "evidence".

I gave you the sources. Don't be lazy -- go read them yourself. Read about fossil forest sequences. Read about isochron dating. Read about biostratigraphy. Read about coal and oil deposits. Pry your eyes away from AiG and ICR and read what real scientists who actually publish testable work say. Then, if you take issue with, say, the conclusions of isochron dating, come here and we can discuss the details.

You're giving me your beliefs w/out proof which equals..your "beliefs"

For the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

The burden of proof and homework is on you not me...you're the one who made the statement.

If I make the statement that "the grass is green", does the burden rest on me to show it, or does it rest on the one who disagrees and says it's purple? Science has established the antiquity of the earth. 99% of all scientists agree on this. You disagree. The onus is on you to show why.

Besides, I do my homework in AIG, ICR, CSE, with people like Henry Morris, Ken Ham, etc... so, I'm sure we'll agree to disagree because my source is better than your source and this book is better than that book blah blah blah...

It's easy to say your source is better than mine. What counts, though, is evidence. So, whose interpretation does the evidence support? Does the work of Ham et al. yield beneficial results? Can it lead us to oil? Can it predict fossil sequences? Can it fight disease? The answer is always no. That is, unless you know of a creation study that suggests otherwise...

Notice...I've never claimed to be God and you forget 2 Peter 1:20. Even a child can see that Genesis is a literal account.

And you forget 1 Corinthians 14:20. Stop thinking like a child.

Only adults w/ their evolutionary doctrine could put the idea of evolution in the bible.

I make no attempt at doing so. In fact, very few (if any) of us TEs here do.

Name one biblical character or early church father who did not believe in a young earth.

Name one who did not believe in a flat earth. Name one who did not believe in a geocentric solar system. Name one who did not believe that the heavens were divided by a solid firmament. Because these things are what a plain reading of the Bible clearly teaches.

So, again the bottom line is...is the Word of God true or untrue?

It is true. It claims to contain spiritual truth. See the first line of my signature.
Perhaps you can now tell me where it claims physical/scientific truth...

I challenge you to read the articles listed at the top of this post. Read w/ an open mind and ask God to reveal truth to you. This will probably be my last post on this thread unless you have a specific question for me. I have made my stand on the Word of God and no-one here will change my beliefs, so it's probably an unfruitful debate. 1Tim. 6:20,21: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Jesus hated hypocrisy.

 

[vossler]

The Bible clearly emphasizes the spiritual truths to which we must all adhere, a faith in Christ's resurrection, most prominently.

The rest is just filler that we can use as we see fit.

Do you claim to be able to convey God's intended truths inerrantly? Are you God?

No, that's probably why His Word doesn't apply to me huh!

Do you know God's thoughts?

No, not all of them, but some. They're located in His book and they are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.