The Theology of Genesis

[rmwilliamsll]

Strictly speaking, the only worldview science can yield is naturalism.

loosely speaking science can not yield any world views. that is the point, it has a deliberately truncated methodology, a significantly restricted universe of discourse and operates with a particular set of intellectual tools that are not useful to create worldviews.

strictly speaking science is very circumspect in what it talks about, how it talks about it and the theories it builds. it does not do ethics, morality, right wrong or tell you how to act to be a good person, all things crucial to world views.

people do world views, they take the things that they trust and understand and make worldviews out of them. by necessity we need to know why we do things, towards what goals we do them, under what motivations we operate, for principles of goodness and truth and beauty. none of this is science, it is metaphysics. to confuse the two is the problem of levels or category errors and forms one of the crucial pieces of why religious people often just don't get science or scientific people.

 

[Calminian]

You're right, I shouldn't have said that

No prob.

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

It's an interesting story. If the evidence that converted him is no longer valid, I wonder why he still holds proudly (seemingly) to his deism. Although there's a trace of agnosticism coming through, he still favors an aristotelian deity. Yet he reject Aristotle's arguments for it. Is his book out yet? I'd really like to see him sort this out.

Bottom line is, if a deity is necessary to explain things, then naturalistic theories don't adequately explain them. A supernatural explanation must be applied and once it is, you are no longer in the realm of science. You cannot prove scientifically when the miracle happened, nor how many miracles happened. You must then move to other forms of evidence such as historical testimonial evidence.

One other interesting point. Flew formulated one of the best logical objections against miracles. It was based on the fact that God had to be assumed in order to define a miracle, which would be begging the question. Yet now he affirms a deity. I wonder if he’ll revisit is argument against miracles.

 

[Gwenyfur]

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?

1-Adam is a picture of Y'shua, in that He knowingly ate of the sinful fruit, in order to protect and save his wife.
Just as Y'shua willingly became sin in order to save the created from sin.

2-G-d can't be catgorized, tested, observed or explained. G-d is G-d and in our finite minds we are not able to know His ways, we just willingly trust what He's left for us.

3-Genesis tells me that G-d had a plan for us even before we fall, even as He was creating us, He knew He'd have to save His wayward creation, and He loved us enough to created us anyway

 

[Calminian]

1-Adam is a picture of Y'shua, in that He knowingly ate of the sinful fruit, in order to protect and save his wife.

He was protecting his wife? He blamed her.

 

[shernren]

It's an interesting story. If the evidence that converted him is no longer valid, I wonder why he still holds proudly (seemingly) to his deism. Although there's a trace of agnosticism coming through, he still favors an aristotelian deity. Yet he reject Aristotle's arguments for it. Is his book out yet? I'd really like to see him sort this out.

To be honest, I'm really not very sure at all. I know that it is irresponsible to say this without firsthand knowledge of him but frankly I'd say age has dulled his wits. He admits himself that he does not keep up with scientific knowledge.

And of course, he might just become a Christian. I'd rejoice over that even if it's creationist pseudoscience that brings him into the fold.

Bottom line is, if a deity is necessary to explain things, then naturalistic theories don't adequately explain them. A supernatural explanation must be applied and once it is, you are no longer in the realm of science. You cannot prove scientifically when the miracle happened, nor how many miracles happened. You must then move to other forms of evidence such as historical testimonial evidence.

I don't know. A very, very interesting philosophical question, and one that the creationist ministries haven't taken time to answer, is this: can science ever prove that science is inadequate in a particular situation?

A moment of thought shows that there are equally likely arguments for a yes or a no answer. No, because science begins with the assumption of methodological naturalism, and therefore the evidence that something is suprascientific must come from outside science. Yes, because science is the study of natural dependable relationships between observables, and when no such relationship can be found to exist then science has shown that it cannot apply.

Of course there is further refinement and rebuttal for both. But I think that scientific creationism has really, really ignored this question, which if answered in the wrong way may just be the end of them. For if it can be shown that science cannot prove a miracle, then all their work is in vain as anything they prove with science cannot be a miracle and therefore can be co-opted by atheists as happening without necessitating any supernatural intervention. Of course, I think they are not concerned with it (it's just what I think) because they know that they are dealing with people who ironically have a more atheist mindset of "Hey, if science proves something then it's true!" without really thinking deeply about what provability-by-science implies.

 

[Calminian]

I don't know. A very, very interesting philosophical question, and one that the creationist ministries haven't taken time to answer, is this: can science ever prove that science is inadequate in a particular situation?

I don't see how. Science is a methodology based on the philosophical assumption of naturalism. It yields scientific conclusions. If one decides they are inadequate, one does so using reason and logic, not science. It's not a matter of science proving whether it is right or wrong. We decide whether the scientific conclusion (i.e. natural conclusion) is reasonable, logical, etc.

For if it can be shown that science cannot prove a miracle, then all their work is in vain as anything they prove with science cannot be a miracle and therefore can be co-opted by atheists as happening without necessitating any supernatural intervention.

Not at all. You're simply taking it to the other extreme. Science can inform creationists of many things and give us insights about how God may have done things. They let science inform them, but not dictate a naturalistic conclusion. God created an ordered predictable world and only intervenes rarely. Therefore science is valuable. But they also know naturalism is not all there is. Creationists are theologians, not merely scientists. They use science where it applies and is valuable. We should be like lawyers and piece together evidence from many different methodologies. The goal is not to be loyal to a specific methodology. It is the find the truth about reality. Science can and should be a component, but is not the only component.

 

[Gwenyfur]

He was protecting his wife? He blamed her.

And you've never blamed anyone for something you've done?

puuuhhhleeeeeeeeeeease

 

[Calminian]

And you've never blamed anyone for something you've done?

Not to protect them. Please explain how you've protected someone by blaming them for what you did...puhlease.

 

[shernren]

I don't see how. Science is a methodology based on the philosophical assumption of naturalism. It yields scientific conclusions. If one decides they are inadequate, one does so using reason and logic, not science. It's not a matter of science proving whether it is right or wrong. We decide whether the scientific conclusion (i.e. natural conclusion) is reasonable, logical, etc.

But take, say, IDism. It tries to show that naturalistic assumptions cannot produce life, as far as I can see. If that was really science, wouldn't it be an example of science being able to prove that something is out of science?

 

[theFijian]

Not to protect them. Please explain how you've protected someone by blaming them for what you did...puhlease.

Like you I am rather puzzled to hear how Adam was trying to protect Eve when in fact when Gid asked him if he had eaten of the tree he was told not to and how he knew he was naked he immediately blamed Eve and even God indirectly.

Gen 3:12 - The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

It's amazing how sin compels us to blame everyone else, even God, before we will analyse ourselves.

 

[Dannager]

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the whole protection-of-Eve thing going on either.

 

[Willtor]

And you've never blamed anyone for something you've done?

puuuhhhleeeeeeeeeeease

Yes, I've blamed lots of people for things I've done. Shameful. One might even say I was trying to do the opposite of protecting them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1-Adam is a picture of Y'shua, in that He knowingly ate of the sinful fruit, in order to protect and save his wife.
Just as Y'shua willingly became sin in order to save the created from sin.

Hard to believe we actually agree on something.

 

[Calminian]

But take, say, IDism. It tries to show that naturalistic assumptions cannot produce life, as far as I can see.

Actually I don't think that's exactly what they're saying. Basically the IDM states that the particular type of complexity we see in life forms has only been known to come from intelligent designers, such as humans. They do not speak to the fact of whether this intelligence is natural or not. Scientifically speaking, if these life forms did arise naturally, they did so via some kind of natural intelligence.

From there one can then decide if this a reasonable conclusion, or if science perhaps is not yielding a correct conclusion. From there one can move to other non scientific ways of seeking the truth in this matter. This is a good example of how science can be useful in this debate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like you I am rather puzzled to hear how Adam was trying to protect Eve when in fact when Gid asked him if he had eaten of the tree he was told not to and how he knew he was naked he immediately blamed Eve and even God indirectly.

Gen 3:12 - The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

It's amazing how sin compels us to blame everyone else, even God, before we will analyse ourselves.

God told Adam and Eve not to change the rules, or make up new ones. Eve's desire overcame God's warning. Adam couldn't protect Eve from death at the hand of God, so he decided to die with her. That's why both were hiding from God, as at least Adam fully expected to be put to death. Instead God killed an animal as a substitute for their own deaths, confirming that an 'immediate' death was required, and ceremoniously covered them with the skin.

Imagine their horror, guilt, and shame as God slaughtered the purest, gentlest, most loved lamb in the garden, before their very eyes.This was the first atonement ritual. Adam and Eve were then led into the wilderness (out of the Garden of Eden) probably by an angel (the hand of a fit man), thus paying in their flesh, the physical part of the penalty.

 

[Calminian]

God told Adam and Eve not to change the rules, or make up new ones. Eve's desire overcame God's warning. Adam couldn't protect Eve from death at the hand of God, so he decided to die with her.

Are you sure you're not getting Genesis confused with Romeo and Juliet?

That's why both were hiding from God, as at least Adam fully expected to be put to death.

God asked why he was hiding and he said it was because he was naked. Nothing was said about Adam fearing God would kill him. How did you come to believe this?

Instead God killed an animal as a substitute for their own deaths, confirming that an 'immediate' death was required, and ceremoniously covered them with the skin.

No immediate physical death was necessary. The hebrew literally reads,

Gen. 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.’

Adam and Eve eventually died as as foretold. In hebrew "death" always carries the idea of separation. They were separated from God that day. And they began physically dying that day.

One other thing. The Bible in both the old and new testament blames Adam for the Fall, not Eve. She is said to have been deceived, while Adam sinned knowingly. There was really no need to protect Eve.

When you think about it, this is a very anti-Eve, anti-woman view. Eve becomes the bad one and Adam the noble rescuer.

Very bizarre. It's an interesting story though. Where'd you hear it from?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you sure you're not getting Genesis confused with Romeo and Juliet?



God asked why he was hiding and he said it was because he was naked. Nothing was said about Adam fearing God would kill him. How did you come to believe this?



No immediate physical death was necessary. The hebrew literally reads,

Gen. 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.’




Adam and Eve eventually died as as foretold. In hebrew "death" always carries the idea of separation. They were separated from God that day. And they began physically dying that day.

One other thing. The Bible in both the old and new testament blames Adam for the Fall, not Eve. She is said to have been deceived, while Adam sinned knowingly. There was really no need to protect Eve.

When you think about it, this is a very anti-Eve, anti-woman view. Eve becomes the bad one and Adam the noble rescuer.

Very bizarre. It's an interesting story though. Where'd you hear it from?

Sorry I don't know how to use the program to neatly divide up my answers. Maybe someone can help me with this. So, you,ll have to sort through my responses as best you can.

I use the Hebrew definition from Strong's:

1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death a) to die prematurely

Only a couple of meanings impy death at a future indeterminate time. All the rest imply immediate death.


Paul was given understanding that surpassed that of Moses regarding this event. I'll go with Paul.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


Adam and Eve were just as naked before they sinned.

"Eve the bad one, and Adam the noble rescuer" I like that way of putting it. That is the truth which, when understood, is going to tear Christianity apart.

These are all my conclusions (my latest anyway). I've been studying, and living on earth around human beings, for many years. Both are needed, I think, to understand God.

Thanks for 'bizzare'. Not a bad term. I'm glad you're interested.

 

[Calminian]

Sorry I don't know how to use the program to neatly divide up my answers. Maybe someone can help me with this. So, you,ll have to sort through my responses as best you can.

I use the Hebrew definition from Strong's:

That's fine but you also need to look at context. We are to die daily to our old selfs. This simply means we separate from our old ways daily. This is very well established and you won't find many theologians that disagree.

Paul was given understanding that surpassed that of Moses regarding this event. I'll go with Paul.

Good because I was quoting Paul. Eve is never blamed for original sin. It's always Adam.

Adam and Eve were just as naked before they sinned.

Yes but they did not know they were naked.

"Eve the bad one, and Adam the noble rescuer" I like that way of putting it. That is the truth which, when understood, is going to tear the church apart.

Actually unsound doctrine is what tears churches apart. The argument you make thus far contradicts the account and the rest of scripture. Adam was not a nobel wife rescuing hero.

These are all my conclusions (my latest anyway). I've been studying, and living on earth around human beings, for many years. Both are needed, I think, to understand God.

You did not get this false account by studying human beings, nor from scripture.

Thanks for 'bizzare'. Not a bad term. I'm glad you're interested.

I'm interested examining views in light of the word of God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's fine but you also need to look at context. We are to die daily to our old selfs. This simply means we separate from our old ways daily. This is very well established and you won't find many theologians that disagree.



Good because I was quoting Paul. Eve is never blamed for original sin. It's always Adam.



Yes but they did not know they were naked.



Actually unsound doctrine is what tears churches apart. The argument you make thus far contradicts the account and the rest of scripture. Adam was not a nobel wife rescuing hero.



You did not get this false account by studying human beings, nor from scripture.



I'm interested examining views in light of the word of God.

It only takes a short time to read the bible, but a lifetime to understand it, and God. That's why we have so many years of life. I don't expect younger people to understand what I'm saying. I'm just amusing myself, and fishing to see if anyone else has similiar ideas.

 

[theFijian]

God told Adam and Eve not to change the rules, or make up new ones.

No he didn't. He said essentially "Obey me".

Adam couldn't protect Eve from death at the hand of God, so he decided to die with her.

I really don't see how you can get this from Genesis 3, there is no indication of anthing valiant in Adam's actions or motives. All we have is an attempt at self-preservation. He tries to blame Eve, and indirectly, God.

That's why both were hiding from God,

They were both hiding because they both knew they were naked, ie. they were both ashamed of what they had done and knew that God would not be happy when he found out.

Instead God killed an animal as a substitute for their own deaths, confirming that an 'immediate' death was required, and ceremoniously covered them with the skin.

The only part of that which is accurate is the bit I bolded, the rest is nowhere to be found in the text Where are you getting it from?

Adam and Eve were then led into the wilderness (out of the Garden of Eden) probably by an angel (the hand of a fit man), thus paying in their flesh, the physical part of the penalty.

I can't see where you get this from the text either. Adam and Eve were not led into the wilderness, they wwere expelled. And the role played by an angel was not to lead, but to prohibit them from entering into the garden ever again.