The Theology of Genesis

[Willtor]

In another thread, I questioned whether Genesis had become redundant because of science. Most YEC's I've read (in these forums) hold the view that science has yielded an account that supports the Genesis account of Creation. Most TE's I've read (in these forums) think science has yielded an account contrary in fact to the Genesis account of Creation. In short, both of these views (on their own) appear to make Genesis superfluous.

Now, you've all written (one hundred times or more, no doubt) what you think the nature of Genesis is (myth, allegory, literal sequence of events, etc.).

1. Those views aside, what do you view as the core theological content of Genesis (at least the Creation account)?

2. What does it tell you (if anything) that science doesn't?

3. Does it say anything that science can't?

I know some of these questions are going to require more or less content in their responses than others. But I wouldn't mind seeing how that balance differs (if at all) between people of different origins views. Please take some time to come up with a well-reasoned response.

 

[shernren]

I have about 2 minutes before I rush to class.

But how does the TE view make Genesis "superfluous"? I'm lost. TEism is science and Genesis is spirituality and both go hand in hand. It's like saying Song of Solomon is superfluous as a book about marital love because it has no data on birth control and preventing STDs.

 

[Willtor]

I have about 2 minutes before I rush to class.

But how does the TE view make Genesis "superfluous"? I'm lost. TEism is science and Genesis is spirituality and both go hand in hand. It's like saying Song of Solomon is superfluous as a book about marital love because it has no data on birth control and preventing STDs.

I don't think it makes it superfluous, either. My saying it was superfluous stemmed from a lack of discussion on the theology presented, therein. I hope that this thread provides an atmosphere conducive to clearer discussion as to why (on the part of YEC's) Genesis must be interpreted literally, and why (on the part of TE's) it doesn't necessarily have to be so.

 

[gluadys]

1. Those views aside, what do you view as the core theological content of Genesis (at least the Creation account)?

It tells us first that there is a Creator.

It tells us second that creation is a creation, not something that "just happened" but rather something that was brought into existence by the loving will of the Creator.

It tells us that creation itself is not divine, but a work of the Creator.

It tells us that there is only one God, the Creator of all things, not a pantheon of gods.

It tells us that we have a special role to play in creation. We are made in God's image and so share some of God's attributes in lesser form. We are the rulers of this planet under God, stewards of this part of God's creation.

I could go on, but that is enough to start with.

2. What does it tell you (if anything) that science doesn't?

3. Does it say anything that science can't?

All of the above.

And that is why Genesis is not superfluous even though we have a much different view of the mechanics of how the universe came to be than the authors of Genesis had.

 

[Calminian]

In another thread, I questioned whether Genesis had become redundant because of science. Most YEC's I've read (in these forums) hold the view that science has yielded an account that supports the Genesis account of Creation.

Just to be precise and clear, science doesn't falsify anything mentioned in Genesis. Science is a form of investigation that relies on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Since Genesis is an account of several miracles quite large in scope, science really can't help us in the sense of verifying or falsifying the account. Science really can't help us in determining the truth of any miracle. The Resurrection will never be verified by science. Science can show us anomalies in current naturalistic theories of origins, such as complex designs in life forms. These of course are what drove well know atheist philosopher Anthony Flew over the the theistic side. But science and miracles really don't mix, so I wouldn't go so far to say science supports the Genesis account.

Most TE's I've read (in these forums) think science has yielded an account contrary in fact to the Genesis account of Creation.

In a strict sense, since science is limited to natural processes, so of course it will yield an account contrary to the miraculous creation in Genesis.

1. Those views aside, what do you view as the core theological content of Genesis (at least the Creation account)?

Genesis is the foundation of the gospel. It tells us of the origin of sin and death. It tells us of the first Adam and why there was a need for the last Adam, Christ. That would be the core. It also tells us the origin of the universe, life, marriage, clothing, languages and the approximate age of the earth.

2. What does it tell you (if anything) that science doesn't?
3. Does it say anything that science can't?

It tells us things naturalistic approaches can't. It tells us about great miracles that God performed in the past. A six day creation, a worldwide curse (and modification to creation), a worldwide flood, the creation of multiple languages and more. It tells us about miracles in history—something natural theology could never inform us about.

How'd I do?

 

[shernren]

Science can show us anomalies in current naturalistic theories of origins, such as complex designs in life forms.

But science being science can only supplant one naturalistic theory of origins with another naturalistic theory, right?

These of course are what drove well know atheist philosopher Anthony Flew over the the theistic side.

To be quite frank I imagine Anthony Flew must be an embarrassment to both sides of the debate for simply not being able to make up his mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew , for a preliminary treatment.

Note that the most he ever went was being a deist. This is significant. He apparently embraced ID conclusions about abiogenesis, which could have sparked a deistic conclusion. But note that I don't think he ever criticised evolution itself (besides when he conflated it with abiogenesis), or else he would have to go all the way to theism, since evolution is ongoing. The fact that he did not implicitly shows, to me at least, that he did not find a convincing refutation of evolution. But that's just my opinion.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Just to be precise and clear, science doesn't falsify anything mentioned in Genesis. Science is a form of investigation that relies on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Since Genesis is an account of several miracles quite large in scope, science really can't help us in the sense of verifying or falsifying the account. Science really can't help us in determining the truth of any miracle. The Resurrection will never be verified by science.

True, but what science could do was help determine the falsehood of a "miracle." That is to say, it could prove that something seemingly miraculous actually has a natural explanation.

In the case of the Resurrection, for example, science could have proven at the time that it didn't happen miraculously... If, for example, Jesus hadn't been dead when he was taken off the cross... if he was taken down too soon, and was unconscious and only appeared dead, then that could've been proven, even though it doesn't take an M.D. to diagnose the difference between "dead" and "not dead yet."

Then, someone with some scientific (in this case, medical science) training could have nursed the critically-injured-but-still-alive Christ back to health... not full health, but at least back on his feet in three days.

Please Note: I obviously do not believe it happened this way... this is just an example of how science cannot prove a miracle, but could disprove one.

Science can show us anomalies in current naturalistic theories of origins, such as complex designs in life forms. These of course are what drove well know atheist philosopher Anthony Flew over the the theistic side. But science and miracles really don't mix, so I wouldn't go so far to say science supports the Genesis account.

And I would agree, because the best science can do to "support" much of anything is to say "well, we've tried everything we can think of, and we still haven't disproven it yet."

As Carl Sagan used to say, the scientific method isn't perfect, it's just the best we've got.

In a strict sense, since science is limited to natural processes, so of course it will yield an account contrary to the miraculous creation in Genesis.

Also agreed... once the miracles start, science is pretty much left scratching its head. That's when we start looking to theology...

In the case of something like Gemesis, the theological question becomes, "Would (notice would, not could) God create something that was young but posessed all the signs of being old?"

That's the theological (not scientific, since we're off the scientific charts at this point) question that YECs and TEs argue over.

Genesis is the foundation of the gospel. It tells us of the origin of sin and death. It tells us of the first Adam and why there was a need for the last Adam, Christ. That would be the core. It also tells us the origin of the universe, life, marriage, clothing, languages and the approximate age of the earth.

Genesis tells us what it was meant to tell us. If taken literally, it tells us much more.

It tells us things naturalistic approaches can't. It tells us about great miracles that God performed in the past. A six day creation, a worldwide curse (and modification to creation), a worldwide flood, the creation of multiple languages and more. It tells us about miracles in history—something natural theology could never inform us about.

Which brings us to the question... is it the intention of Genesis to tell us all these details, or do we read too much into it by taking it completely literally?

How'd I do?

Well, I may not agree with everything you said, but I think you did well.

 

[Calminian]

But science being science can only supplant one naturalistic theory of origins with another naturalistic theory, right?

When one adheres strictly to methodological naturalism, yes. Science can inform one about God, but the moment you conclude supernatural, you have moved over to philosophy.

Note that the most he ever went was being a deist. This is significant. He apparently embraced ID conclusions about abiogenesis, which could have sparked a deistic conclusion. But note that I don't think he ever criticized evolution itself (besides when he conflated it with abiogenesis), or else he would have to go all the way to theism, since evolution is ongoing. The fact that he did not implicitly shows, to me at least, that he did not find a convincing refutation of evolution. But that's just my opinion.

Yes he has embraced a deistic aristotelian like God. He was moved from atheism to theism by the teleological argument, especially in light of recent discoveries having to do with DNA. He concluded these things could not have come about naturally. He cites the ID movement as being especially influential in his conclusion. When one claims some life form couldn't arise naturally, this is a criticism of the scientific aspect of evolution. Certainly God could have supernaturally caused evolution, and interestingly, many theists believe this. But once you conclude evolution with God's help you are no longer in the scientific realm. This is a philosophical view.

I wouldn't call him an embarrassment at all. He doesn't believe what I believe but he did have the courage to change his view in light of new information and discoveries. Of course christians are hoping he makes the final step toward christianity, which his theism has set the stage for.

 

[Calminian]

True, but what science could do was help determine the falsehood of a "miracle." That is to say, it could prove that something seemingly miraculous actually has a natural explanation.

This is a common misunderstanding. A natural explanation does not rule out a supernatural one, per se. If one examined the wine Jesus created, a very logical natural explanation could have been formulated for its origin. Yet that natural explanation would have been wrong. If one examined the fish and bread Christ created, he could have formulated many natural explanations as to its origin. Yet those natural explanations would have been wrong. The conception of a viable natural explanation does not in and of itself falsify a miraculous explanation.

I agree that science can help, but ultimately philosophical logical reasoning from historical data is the only way to verify or falsify a miracle.

 

[Willtor]

Here are my answers to my own questions:

1. Theological Content of the Genesis Creation Account: I interpret the Genesis story as a myth that was intended to compete with the myths of neighboring societies by providing some understanding of the true God. The account identifies God, first as Creator, apart from His Creation. Foremost, it distinguishes God from the sorts of things that were considered gods by neighboring societies (Earth, sun, moon, animals, etc.). It places God above and before all things. Beyond this, it indicates that men were created by God and that we are not coeternal with Him, even in essence. Man has a definite beginning.

The second part of the Creation account strongly suggests that men were created cognizant of God in relation to themselves. In some sense, man was like God, and this led to his ability to participate in a relationship with Him. Given the progression of theology, and knowing God as triune, I think it is appropriate to read something of God's desire to share what He already had within Himself with something else (not Himself). Thus, man's first cognition of God was as Father (something He is, in Himself), and later as Creator (something He became). In both senses (that of Father, and Creator) God was his origin.

Within God, the fullness of relationship was already present. Man's basis for working relationship was found in his origin, which (as has been said) was God. He had no knowledge of good or evil, but only unity with God. Therefore, the deception of the Devil was more than merely questioning God's word (though, it certainly was that). Man could dictate the nature of relationship; what was permissible, and what was impermissible. As such, he chose to become his own origin and come to knowledge of what was "harmonious" and what was "destructive." He became conscious of good and evil. Where, before, he had been like God in unity with God, now he was like God against God.

In so doing, he lost his vision of God and lost step with nature. The curse indicates the friction introduced into all of his relationships. Everything that had come so easily under the guidance of nature's Master was now fraught with strife under his own guidance. His descent was quick and he became wretched. Only death limited his descent into depravity. Even so, in his vileness, he sought to deny what he had lost. The obvious consequence of his replacing God with himself was to become a "creator," and he constructed things in his own image. These became his idols. In order to simulate the relationship he had lost, he invented religion.

Relation to the Gospel of Christ: The nature of relationship is such that when it is damaged, it is the obligation of both parties to repair it; not just the one who caused the damage. Christ, God's self-revelation to Man, was the Word through whom the world was created. When He took on flesh, He was able to work reconciliation from both sides of the relationship. He provided Himself as a concrete and eternal connection to God that could not be broken. This hypostasis of God and Man is indicative of complete reconciliation, and the death and resurrection - a total reversal of the Fall. Reacquainting man with his true origin, Christ provides a foundation for living in harmony with God, nature, and other men.

There is, of course, a lot more. But this is a summary of my present understanding of the theology of Creation.

2. Genesis Stands Alongside Natural Science: The two do not conflict, not because they say the same thing, but precisely because they don't even try.

3. Genesis's Contribution to Understanding: is purely theological. Natural sciences do not make contributions to theology. Barth calls theology a science, but it is certainly unlike any other sort of science in that its object is incomprehensible. Even if this is true of other sciences, none would assert it so certainly without the benefit of philosophy.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

Genesis is the foundation of the gospel. It tells us of the origin of sin and death. It tells us of the first Adam and why there was a need for the last Adam, Christ. That would be the core. It also tells us the origin of the universe, life, marriage, clothing, languages and the approximate age of the earth.

It tells us things naturalistic approaches can't. It tells us about great miracles that God performed in the past. A six day creation, a worldwide curse (and modification to creation), a worldwide flood, the creation of multiple languages and more. It tells us about miracles in history—something natural theology could never inform us about.

How'd I do?

Good response. Very concise. I'm guessing by your response that you oppose the efforts by Christians to support the Genesis account with science?

 

[vossler]

1. Theological Content of the Genesis Creation Account: I interpret the Genesis story as a myth that was intended to compete with the myths of neighboring societies by providing some understanding of the true God. The account identifies God, first as Creator, apart from His Creation. Foremost, it distinguishes God from the sorts of things that were considered gods by neighboring societies (Earth, sun, moon, animals, etc.). It places God above and before all things. Beyond this, it indicates that men were created by God and that we are not coeternal with Him, even in essence. Man has a definite beginning.

The second part of the Creation account strongly suggests that men were created cognizant of God in relation to themselves. In some sense, man was like God, and this led to his ability to participate in a relationship with Him. Given the progression of theology, and knowing God as triune, I think it is appropriate to read something of God's desire to share what He already had within Himself with something else (not Himself). Thus, man's first cognition of God was as Father (something He is, in Himself), and later as Creator (something He became). In both senses (that of Father, and Creator) God was his origin.

Within God, the fullness of relationship was already present. Man's basis for working relationship was found in his origin, which (as has been said) was God. He had no knowledge of good or evil, but only unity with God. Therefore, the deception of the Devil was more than merely questioning God's word (though, it certainly was that). Man could dictate the nature of relationship; what was permissible, and what was impermissible. As such, he chose to become his own origin and come to knowledge of what was "harmonious" and what was "destructive." He became conscious of good and evil. Where, before, he had been like God in unity with God, now he was like God against God.

In so doing, he lost his vision of God and lost step with nature. The curse indicates the friction introduced into all of his relationships. Everything that had come so easily under the guidance of nature's Master was now fraught with strife under his own guidance. His descent was quick and he became wretched. Only death limited his descent into depravity. Even so, in his vileness, he sought to deny what he had lost. The obvious consequence of his replacing God with himself was to become a "creator," and he constructed things in his own image. These became his idols. In order to simulate the relationship he had lost, he invented religion.

Relation to the Gospel of Christ: The nature of relationship is such that when it is damaged, it is the obligation of both parties to repair it; not just the one who caused the damage. Christ, God's self-revelation to Man, was the Word through whom the world was created. When He took on flesh, He was able to work reconciliation from both sides of the relationship. He provided Himself as a concrete and eternal connection to God that could not be broken. This hypostasis of God and Man is indicative of complete reconciliation, and the death and resurrection - a total reversal of the Fall. Reacquainting man with his true origin, Christ provides a foundation for living in harmony with God, nature, and other men.

There is, of course, a lot more. But this is a summary of my present understanding of the theology of Creation.

I always like it when someone presents their theological account of a topic in a well thought out and succinct manner. It's especially noteworthy when one uses their own words to do it.

Thanks, I enjoyed it!

 

[Willtor]

I always like it when someone presents their theological account of a topic in a well thought out and succinct manner. It's especially noteworthy when one uses their own words to do it.

Thanks, I enjoyed it!

Yay! Although, I wish I could take credit, these are conclusions I have reached through reading others' works. The words may be mine, but the content is decidedly not.

The notion of taking one's eyes off God, and death as a limit to the Fall is from [WIKI]Athanasius[/WIKI]. God as Man's origin and the idea of "like God but against God" is from [WIKI]Dietrich Bonhoeffer[/WIKI]. God as Father preceding God as Creator is from [WIKI]T.F. Torrance[/WIKI] (though, he probably gets it from [WIKI]Karl Barth[/WIKI], though I haven't read enough of Barth to say for certain). That reconcilliation of relationship must be two sided is just from experience of broken relationships, and I think it is implicit to the doctrine of grace. Certainly, [WIKI]Gregory of Nazianzus[/WIKI] says "that which is unassumed is unredeemed," which implicitly argues for this view of grace necessitating the doctrine of hypostasis. Frankly, just from what limited work I have read, I could write a book on Genesis theology.

Of course, these are the things I really like to discuss. The whole TE, OEC, Gap, YEC, etc. debate has never helped me, theologically. Needless to say, I am deeply interested in what Christians have to say about Genesis, content-wise. In this "Origins Theology" forum, I can't say I've read very much from anybody. I'd like to hear interpretations.

 

[shernren]

Yes he has embraced a deistic aristotelian like God. He was moved from atheism to theism by the teleological argument, especially in light of recent discoveries having to do with DNA. He concluded these things could not have come about naturally. He cites the ID movement as being especially influential in his conclusion. When one claims some life form couldn't arise naturally, this is a criticism of the scientific aspect of evolution. Certainly God could have supernaturally caused evolution, and interestingly, many theists believe this. But once you conclude evolution with God's help you are no longer in the scientific realm. This is a philosophical view.

Did you read the article? He has rejected what he said earlier about being convinced by Schroeder and the ID gang. That's the part of the story those creationists don't want you to hear. "Presenting our soon-to-be convert, Anthony Flew .... hey! COME BACK HERE!"

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In another thread, I questioned whether Genesis had become redundant because of science. Most YEC's I've read (in these forums) hold the view that science has yielded an account that supports the Genesis account of Creation. Most TE's I've read (in these forums) think science has yielded an account contrary in fact to the Genesis account of Creation. In short, both of these views (on their own) appear to make Genesis superfluous.

Now, you've all written (one hundred times or more, no doubt) what you think the nature of Genesis is (myth, allegory, literal sequence of events, etc.).

1. Those views aside, what do you view as the core theological content of Genesis (at least the Creation account)?

2. What does it tell you (if anything) that science doesn't?

3. Does it say anything that science can't?

I know some of these questions are going to require more or less content in their responses than others. But I wouldn't mind seeing how that balance differs (if at all) between people of different origins views. Please take some time to come up with a well-reasoned response.

God created the heavens and the earth,
the animals and ourselves,
he saw that it was good.

Ergo, we should respect and take care of the good creation, but not worship it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genesis reveals the stage upon which God will finally work out his remaining anger, and purpose. He has punished the angels for perhaps billions of years on earth, prior to creating man. Most of mankind will suffer the same fate. God will conclude this really bad experience by replacing Satan and his demons with Christ and the church, in a restored kingdom. This is the framework within which all biblical understanding, whether fact or myth, is contained.

 

[Calminian]

Good response. Very concise. I'm guessing by your response that you oppose the efforts by Christians to support the Genesis account with science?

No I'm not saying that. Including scientific knowledge to support your philosophical conclusion is fine. I appreciate creationist ministries. I just wouldn't say science per se has yielded an account that supports the Genesis account of Creation. The Creation account is laced with very complex multifarious miracles. Methodological naturalism does not support miracles because it can't. If God really did supernaturally stretch out the heavens on day 2, this miraculous fact could not be discovered by science alone. We can discern some things about God from nature, but not specifics like this. Past miracles can only be verified by examining historical data.

Whether you are a TE, PC or YEC, you arrived at your beliefs about origins through philosophical reasoning, not science. Strictly speaking, the only worldview science can yield is naturalism.

 

[Calminian]

Did you read the article? He has rejected what he said earlier about being convinced by Schroeder and the ID gang. That's the part of the story those creationists don't want you to hear. "Presenting our soon-to-be convert, Anthony Flew .... hey! COME BACK HERE!"

Claiming creationists are covertly hiding this fact is a bit immature. It's specious comments like that that drag these dialogs down. Flew is not a convert. He's simply a theist and he admitted to his friend and long time debating opponent Gary Habermas that the ID movement was key in his move toward theism. I wasn't aware of his recent recants. I'm sure he saw the inconsistency of Schroeder's position. Although Schroeder also says similar things. (I had the opportunity to dialog a little with him one time via e-mail.) The latest piece I've read was an interview in 2005 that was published in Philosophia Christi the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He was actually interviewed by Gary Habermas himself. I'd be interested in reading his actual recant. Do you know where I could get a hold of it?

 

[shernren]

Claiming creationists are covertly hiding this fact is a bit immature. It's specious comments like that that drag these dialogs down. Flew is not a convert. He's simply a theist and he admitted to his friend and long time debating opponent Gary Habermas that the ID movement was key in his move toward theism. I wasn't aware of his recent recants. I'm sure he saw the inconsistency of Schroeder's position. Although Schroeder also says similar things. (I had the opportunity to dialog a little with him one time via e-mail.) The latest piece I've read was an interview in 2005 that was published in Philosophia Christi the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He was actually interviewed by Gary Habermas himself. I'd be interested in reading his actual recant. Do you know where I could get a hold of it?

You're right, I shouldn't have said that but I have seen theists telling us that Anthony Flew converted, but not that he thinks the evidence that converted him is not reliable any more.

For starters, there was that wikipedia article I showed you. Did you read it?

There's this: http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

The "recantation" is in the January 2005 update.

There's also this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html

Q Let's now talk about what you have come to believe recently and the changes you have made to your non-belief. The explanations seem to be several. One, not necessarily the prime one, but it concerned 50 years of research into DNA. Can you explain why you regard those developments, those 50 years as...
A Well when I did most of my talking about this, I was not aware that there has actually been apparently some progress in what looked to Darwin himself as the insoluble problem of... Darwin's theory ended in chapter fourteen of 'The Origin of Species' with Darwin's account of how the whole story began. It began with a creature capable of reproduction with occasional errors.
Q Can I read in fact the sentence which you quote from Darwin, which is fundamental to the way you have changed your mind? Darwin wrote 'I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.'
A Yes.
Q Can you expand your...
A Well Darwin presumably believed himself that it was breathed by the deity, and a great many people - not only me -were shaken by the enormous complexity of DNA, and wondering whether it would ever be possible to produce a naturalistic theory there. I believe that it has now begun to...
Q The argument that you pursue is that at, as it were, the beginning of the development of life, which Darwin expounds and you accept his exposition...
A No he's only expounding the origin of species you know. He offers us really, in this fourteenth chapter, the starting point of his whole theory. But that starting point is a thing that still needs a naturalistic explanation. And many people after the findings of DNA looked around and wondered whether they'd ever be able to find it, and thought it would simply be impossible to do it. Well it isn't.
Q And what you believe, what you argue in the text that I have read is that there is no explanation for how that life began from no life.
A Yah. Well the really long introduction which I wrote for this book did express my own incredulity about this. The new one that will go in points to what has in fact been done, and indicates that my incredulity has stopped in the face of the evidence.

 

[foadle]

This could take a long while which I don't have so I may have to come back to it. We need to recognise that the Bible needs to be considered on both the physical and the Spiritual levels.
As we know that God is never changing and that we are a new creation upon our acceptance of God we can then look at the Genesis account from the point of view of what is the new creation God is doing (or has done) is us.
Personally I have seen it in this light:
Before we know God our lives are a desolate waste, meaningless and without purpose but because we do not have the light of God we can't see that and if we can we can't see how bad it really is.
For that reason the firts thing that must happen is that light comes into our lives. This happens when we accept what Christ has done for us.
Upon accepting Christ we do not become perfect and so there is a part of us that becomes divide. Our human nature still wants to do what it has always done but we are learning a higher way of behaviour.
For us to have any success in this God builds our foundation as we build our relationship with him. As that foundation strengthens we are able to start providing the norishment we need to continue in the stability God has been giving us. Eventually we grow to a point that we can feed others on the spiritual truths of God and encourage them in their walk. The final step is that which places us so securely we are able to bring non Christians to God that they may also begin the process.
This is a very condensed version of what I have understood from my own personal study and you may question this. I am open to the criticism.