Where Does the Conflict Lie?: Considerations and Questions

[Ariston]

Thoughts on Genesis

I have considered these three questions for some time.

1. How do we read Genesis 1.
2. Is evolutionary theory true in terms of the grand narrative?
3. How do 1 and 2 relate.

The search has led me to the present considerations.

Genesis 1 needs to be taken up seriously on exegetical grounds, distinct from the questions concerning Darwinism. I have read Genesis 1, over and over. I have found that there is a spectrum of interpretation amongst Christians in all places and at all times. This much is clear:

Genesis 1 offers us a framework that is concerned with teaching that God created an ordered world from disorder through his Word and for humankind. The days correspond as follows:

Day 1: Light and Darkness/Day 4: Sun, Moon, and Stars
Day 2: The sky and the waters/Day 5: The birds and fish
Day 3: The formation of land/Day 6: The formation of animals and humans
Day 7: God Rests.

Of the main points so it seems, is that God created the heavens and the earth by his Word and by his Breath (ruach/Spirit, breath). That he alone is the Author. The world is functional because God created it by his ordination and providence to be as such. Nothing is divine nor worthy of worship but was rather created by God who alone is worthy of worship. To its original audience, it would have read as a powerful polemic against pagan and idol worship. Man was worshiping images and even humans as gods. But Genesis 1 turns this on its head. The sun, the moon, animals, and humans were not worthy of worship. Man and women are created in God's image though man makes god's in their own image.
The concern here seems to be of communicating that God alone is creator and that he formed for himself a world (Day 1-3), created the functionaries, (Days 4-6), thus making it functional for us and so "took up his rest" in the world with the humans that he made in his image. Importantly, "it is good" since it is sourced in God, and God delights in the world that he has made. So why do people take the text literally?

I see no relation between the scientific questions concerning Darwinism and the Bible since we are offered a theological framework for apprehending how God relates to the world that he has made following the seven day week of the ancient Hebrews that was already acknowledged before the receiving of the Torah. The first chapter of Genesis then, I believe, is something of a catechism for teaching the Hebrews first, and then us second, our place in the created order and God's relation to humans and creation.

Also, what is your take on evolution? Here there are many perspectives, I am no biologist, and I do not know who is telling the truth or if anyone knows the answer. I lean towards evolution but I have my doubts about the grand narrative. Importantly, the Biblical texts and the sciences are in my view distinct concerns. If I am right, Genesis 1 ought not to be read like a science book, and their relation is not one of tension since the Bible is communicating something much more important and something other than what the sciences, by their nature, have the ability to address.

 

[Roms916]

Genesis 1 should be read as history, as something that really happened, as eyewitness testimony.

I am not sure what you are calling the "Grand Narrative," but the evolutionary theory is not compatible with the holy word of God. Here is why:

1. Evolution says that death came before sin. The fossil record is full of organisms eating each other, evidence of disease, death, etc. God said everything He had made at the end of day 6 was "very good" (Gen 1:31) How is this good?
2. Evolution also has some serious scientific issues as well. For instance, there is no mechanism for evolution. Natural selection, adaptation, mutation and punctuated equilibrium cannot account for the great diversity of life that Jesus Christ created. Have you ever noticed on news articles about evolutionary "discoveries" they make mention of "small, incremental changes," yet never mention what is the cause of those changes?
3. Even the evolutionists know they cannot defend what they believe. They actually warn each other about debating Creationists because they know they will be destroyed by them.

Peter actually rightly prophesied about evolutionists and uniformitarianism in 2 Peter 3:3-7:
"Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.' But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (emphasis added)

 

[Ariston]

Well, I was not uniforming anything. The piece was concerned with how to read Genesis 1 and is concerned with suggesting that we should leave the sciences to the scientists. In other words, I was try to do precisely the opposite of unifying anything but rather to show why the two cannot come into conflict due to the nature of what the text intends to communicate and what the sciences do. The piece suggests that it would be improper to harmonize Genesis and modern science. That being the case, it seems that Christians can be less anxious about the possibility of there being any type of war between science and Christianity. I was here attempting to help Christians appreciate the creation narrative for what it seems to me to be, which is a statement about God, us, and the world which the sciences by nature could never acknowledge through their method. That was my point.

I read the 2 Peter passage. It seems almost unbelievable that you would condemn another person to hell for offering up a suggestion. I am in the process of trying to understand as best as I can. I never even suggested that evolution was true. That is why I asked what persons thoughts were on the matter. The passage in 2 Peter is about persons scoffing at the suggestion that Christ will return, which I believe in, not for scoffing about a particular theory about how we should understand the way through which YHWH created or Genesis 1. Point 2 is interesting however. And I appreciate it. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by faith in creationism. With that in mind, consider Gal. 1:9 before you attack another believer or non-believer for their considerations on science and the Bible.

 

[Roms916]

Aniston,
I think you may have also misread my post, I was not attempting to condemn anyone to hell, but merely stating the fact that there will be people in the last days that hold to uniformitarian teaching (that's why I added the emphasis). I never stated anywhere that anyone was condemned to hell for merely adhering to evolution or offering a suggestion. The Bible is very clear that faith in Jesus Christ determines salvation not evolution. I will endeavor to be clearer in future posts. Thank you.

 

[Ariston]

I see. "..ever since our Fathers fell asleep, all things continuing as they were since the beginning of creation." The related passage in Jude 17-18 suggests that the Apostles are the Fathers. The passage apparently is then concerned with scoffers in church congregations, (false teachers or apostates) that will deny our Lord's return by which Peter does pronounce judgment on them. And there are no shortage of people as such in modern churches. So be on guard against them brother. But I do not see that the emphasis is on concordism.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thoughts on Genesis

I have considered these three questions for some time.

1. How do we read Genesis 1.
2. Is evolutionary theory true in terms of the grand narrative?
3. How do 1 and 2 relate.

I don't know what happened in the past outside of what is written.
Jesus said the meek shall inherent the world.
All of the ministry of Jesus was focused on the "less - fit".
So Jesus' ministry was opposed to natural selection and it's
role of killing off all the less fit so the best fit would live.

Oh and God never changes...which grates against the notion of evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Roms916 and Ariston, Welcome to the forum

Genesis 1 should be read as history, as something that really happened, as eyewitness testimony.

The term 'eyewitness testimony' refers to human eyewitnesses, where God reveals what only he knows, it is called revelation. It is true that eyewitness testimony is usually literal, divine revelations on the other hand are frequently figurative or symbolic. There were no human eyewitnesses for God's creation in Genesis 1, it is God's revelation of his creation.

I am not sure what you are calling the "Grand Narrative," but the evolutionary theory is not compatible with the holy word of God. Here is why:

1 Evolution says that death came before sin. The fossil record is full of organisms eating each other, evidence of disease, death, etc.

The bible never says animal death is the result of the fall.

God said everything He had made at the end of day 6 was "very good" (Gen 1:31) How is this good?

If you think it isn't good that carnivores exist, are you a vegetarian? God tells us in the bible that he provides prey to hungry young lions and ravens. Perhaps God's idea of a very good creation is different from yours.

2. Evolution also has some serious scientific issues as well. For instance, there is no mechanism for evolution. Natural selection, adaptation, mutation and punctuated equilibrium cannot account for the great diversity of life that Jesus Christ created. Have you ever noticed on news articles about evolutionary "discoveries" they make mention of "small, incremental changes," yet never mention what is the cause of those changes?

Mutation and selection is a mechanism for evolution, so are mechanisms like sexual selection, founder effect and selective sweep. You need to show these cannot account for the diversity of life on earth rather than simply claiming it.

3. Even the evolutionists know they cannot defend what they believe. They actually warn each other about debating Creationists because they know they will be destroyed by them.

You are assuming that's the real reason prominent scientists don't debate Creationists. The problem with a debate format is that a Creationist can throw out a dozen bogus claims in a few minutes (aka the Gish gallop) each of which would take much longer to take apart, explain the actual science and refute than the time available to reply in a debate format. Interestingly you don't see many prominent Creationists in open forums where their arguments can be taken apart.

Peter actually rightly prophesied about evolutionists and uniformitarianism in 2 Peter 3:3-7:
"Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.' But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (emphasis added)

How does ''everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation'' fit the Chicxulub asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs?

 

[gluadys]

Thoughts on Genesis

I have considered these three questions for some time.

1. How do we read Genesis 1.
2. Is evolutionary theory true in terms of the grand narrative?
3. How do 1 and 2 relate.

The search has led me to the present considerations.

Genesis 1 needs to be taken up seriously on exegetical grounds, distinct from the questions concerning Darwinism. I have read Genesis 1, over and over. I have found that there is a spectrum of interpretation amongst Christians in all places and at all times. This much is clear:

Genesis 1 offers us a framework that is concerned with teaching that God created an ordered world from disorder through his Word and for humankind. The days correspond as follows:

Day 1: Light and Darkness/Day 4: Sun, Moon, and Stars
Day 2: The sky and the waters/Day 5: The birds and fish
Day 3: The formation of land/Day 6: The formation of animals and humans
Day 7: God Rests.

Of the main points so it seems, is that God created the heavens and the earth by his Word and by his Breath (ruach/Spirit, breath). That he alone is the Author. The world is functional because God created it by his ordination and providence to be as such. Nothing is divine nor worthy of worship but was rather created by God who alone is worthy of worship. To its original audience, it would have read as a powerful polemic against pagan and idol worship. Man was worshiping images and even humans as gods. But Genesis 1 turns this on its head. The sun, the moon, animals, and humans were not worthy of worship. Man and women are created in God's image though man makes god's in their own image.
The concern here seems to be of communicating that God alone is creator and that he formed for himself a world (Day 1-3), created the functionaries, (Days 4-6), thus making it functional for us and so "took up his rest" in the world with the humans that he made in his image. Importantly, "it is good" since it is sourced in God, and God delights in the world that he has made. So why do people take the text literally?

I see no relation between the scientific questions concerning Darwinism and the Bible since we are offered a theological framework for apprehending how God relates to the world that he has made following the seven day week of the ancient Hebrews that was already acknowledged before the receiving of the Torah. The first chapter of Genesis then, I believe, is something of a catechism for teaching the Hebrews first, and then us second, our place in the created order and God's relation to humans and creation.

Also, what is your take on evolution? Here there are many perspectives, I am no biologist, and I do not know who is telling the truth or if anyone knows the answer. I lean towards evolution but I have my doubts about the grand narrative. Importantly, the Biblical texts and the sciences are in my view distinct concerns. If I am right, Genesis 1 ought not to be read like a science book, and their relation is not one of tension since the Bible is communicating something much more important and something other than what the sciences, by their nature, have the ability to address.

Welcome Ariston

Currently I am reading "The Evolution of Adam" by Peter Enns which supports many of the same conclusions you have come to, especially about there being no need to harmonize science and Genesis, because Genesis is simply not attempting to provide any sort of scientific-historical view of creation. It is revelation and theology first and foremost told in the idiom of its time.

I also do not know what you mean by "the grand narrative" but it seems related to the old and tired micro-macro distinction around which there has been a lot of needless hullabaloo. So-called macro-evolution is as well-established in science as micro-evolution is.

I think, however, that most skeptics are not aware of a significant change in perspective in science about speciation which took hold during the 1980s. (Although there are scientific precursors from earlier times right back to Darwin himself, notably Ernst Mayr and George Simpson.

Earlier studies in evolution stressed changes within a species and the assumption was that given enough changes it became a different species. (this view is sometimes called "anagenic" or "phyletic").

The punctuated equilibrium disputes of the 1980s refocused attention on cladistic or branching speciation--already proposed by those earlier scientists. Most skeptics about macro-evolution have not yet grasped the implications that evolution proceeds in a branching manner. They think this is a minor difference but it really reorients the whole notion of the origin of species in a way that I think you would find makes "the grand narrative" common sense.

 

[Papias]

Ariston-

Welcome! (and Rom 916 welcome also!)

Yep, good points.

I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell. So I was glad to see Rom916 state that it's not a salvation issue. I agree - regardless of what one's view is, I don't see it as a salvation issue either.

There are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the united states are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

If you are interested in examining the evidence for evolution, a reputable site is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists (including millions who are Christians) support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Compare any creationist "list" with Project Steve, times 100.
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is ignorant at best, or worse, a deception.

Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.


Blessings-

Papias

 

[Ariston]

Ariston passed down tradition to Papias (Sorry you might not get that. Its from the Papias' Fragments in the Apostolic Fathers).

 

[Papias]

Ariston wrote:

Ariston passed down tradition to Papias (Sorry you might not get that. Its from the Papias' Fragments in the Apostolic Fathers).

Yep!

 

[SG9]

I believe that Genesis 1,2, & 3 are terribly misinterpreted for the better part.

IMO, there is truth in both creationism and evolutionism but they too, both have serious errors that drive them both apart. To sum this up, I believe that God designed the human to be much different than what we have become, and we have evolved and not into the beings that God designed. But it's also noted by many sects that we humans are in this flesh like wine in a wine skin and when we are transformed we will be put also into new wine skins, a glorified flesh. A new spirit receives a new skin, as well.

We, which are in these old wine skins will pass away and be placed in new skins. So this is telling me that something is wrong with our present form that has evolved into another creation, and not as God designed.

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe that Genesis 1,2, & 3 are terribly misinterpreted for the better part.

IMO, there is truth in both creationism and evolutionism but they too, both have serious errors that drive them both apart. To sum this up, I believe that God designed the human to be much different than what we have become, and we have evolved and not into the beings that God designed. But it's also noted by many sects that we humans are in this flesh like wine in a wine skin and when we are transformed we will be put also into new wine skins, a glorified flesh. A new spirit receives a new skin, as well.

We, which are in these old wine skins will pass away and be placed in new skins. So this is telling me that something is wrong with our present form that has evolved into another creation, and not as God designed.

I do agree we are not what we once were. I don't believe we were designed with nearsighted eyes, color blindness, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, or any of many other genetic afflictions. Also, the first generations could expect to celebrate their 900th birthdays. Now it's uncommon to reach 90.

There's an interesting book I've come across that claims we're slowly devolving from our original God-designed specifications. It's here:

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome: John C. Sanford: 9781599190020: Amazon.com: Books

 

[pshun2404]

My response to another poster will clarify at least my position...

The question was asked "Genesis 1 says before and Genesis 2 says they were created after humans. Which is right?????"

Both...the second set were given nephesh (soulish qualities) that could be friends for men and become domesticated....Genesis 1 speaks of creation (bara) and that is its point (God created), Genesis 2 speaks of being formed or made (yatzar - to give form to) and these are two aspects of the one process God employed in bringing his ideation from nothingness into temporal reality. All was accomplished by His word...He speaks and it is but not always immediately in a temporal sense...the Son was given for us since before the foundation of the world but temporally did not become until the cross...

God created the creatures of the sea and then said let the sea bring forth creatures after its kind and likewise of the earth (the land)...He created creatures and then said let the earth bring forth creatures after its kind...and so with man...changes within these phyla by assimilation, adaptation, interbreeding, catastrophe, radiation, etc., were all foreseen possibilities of the plan...there is nothing new under the sun.