Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Radrook]

I also have a "vehement almost fanatical defense" of a round earth, and a heliocentric solar system. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles mentioned round-earthism or heliocentrism--so is it wrong of me to defend a round earth and a heliocentric model against those who say the earth is flat or that the sun moves around the earth?

Or is it only a problem when I defend the science you personally don't agree with?

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with the heliocentric Earth model and with the round Earth model. But don't let the simplified charts fool you.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that planets and stars rotate around a common center of gravity.
In short, they are in a dance like two ends of a dumbbell with the distances between the dumbbell heads varying according to the differences in mass which affects their gravitational relationships. The effect on the star, including our sun, is that of a slight wobble which sensitive instruments on Earth can detect and mathematically analyzed so that the resulting data indicates the presence of the planet or planets involved, distances and relative masses. That is one way in which exoplanets are discovered.

To help us better imagine the true dynamics of the orbital relationships we have to recall that the sun itself is in orbit around the Milky Way's galactic hub. Which means that the planets are forced to keep up with the sun as it orbits the galactic center which is approx. 26 million light years away. All these motions are depicted as perfectly circular for instructional purposes by basic astronomy solar system charts but there are other charts which depict them more accurately but which are far more difficult for us to envision.

Orbital motions simplified:

So yes, I accept the heliocentric view.
But maybe not in the way you might be accepting it.

Round Earth? Yes, I accept it. But I also keep in mind that the planet Earth isn't perfectly round. It is an oblong. The reason that it is an oblong is because its 1000 miles per hour rotation rate at the equator causes it to produce a bulge an so it seems a bit flatter at the poles that it does at its diameter. So there again we are in agreement but maybe with a slightly different perspective.

Oblate Spheroid

Oblate Spheroid

The Earth's True Shape
The Earth is not a perfect sphere. Due to it's rotation, the Earth (like all rotating planets) has a slightly distorted shape. The rotational momentum tends to force the matter to bunch up in the middle. In the case of the Earth, this "middle" is the equator.

Oblate Spheroid
The true shape of the Earth called an Oblate Spheroid. The term "Oblate" refers to it's slightly oblong appearance. The term "Spheroid" means that it is almost a sphere, but not quite. One of the most important things to remember about the Earth's shape is that it is only very slightly oblate. The diameter from the North Pole to the South Pole (the shortest diameter) is approximately 12,714 km. The equatorial diameter (the longest diameter) is approximately 12,756 km. This is not a big difference, but it does
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/oblate.cfm make the Earth not quite a sphere.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree with the heliocentric Earth model and with the round Earth model. But don't let the simplified charts fool you.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that planets and stars rotate around a common center of gravity.
In short, they are in a dance like two ends of a dumbbell with the distances between the dumbbell heads varying according to the differences in mass which affects their gravitational relationships. The effect on the star, including our sun, is that of a slight wobble which sensitive instruments on Earth can detect and mathematically analyzed so that the resulting data indicates the presence of the planet or planets involved, distances and relative masses. That is one way in which exoplanets are discovered.

To help us better imagine the true dynamics of the orbital relationships we have to recall that the sun itself is in orbit around the Milky Way's galactic hub. Which means that the planets are forced to keep up with the sun as it orbits the galactic center which is approx. 26 million light years away. All these motions are depicted as perfectly circular for instructional purposes by basic astronomy solar system charts but there are other charts which depict them more accurately but which are far more difficult for us to envision.

Orbital motions simplified:

So yes, I accept the heliocentric view.
But maybe not in the way you might be accepting it.

Round Earth? Yes, I accept it. But I also keep in mind that the planet Earth isn't perfectly round. It is an oblong. The reason that it is an oblong is because its 1000 miles per hour rotation rate at the equator causes it to produce a bulge an so it seems a bit flatter at the poles that it does at its diameter. So there again we are in agreement but maybe with a slightly different perspective.

Oblate Spheroid

Oblate Spheroid

The Earth's True Shape
The Earth is not a perfect sphere. Due to it's rotation, the Earth (like all rotating planets) has a slightly distorted shape. The rotational momentum tends to force the matter to bunch up in the middle. In the case of the Earth, this "middle" is the equator.

I mentioned the heliocentric model of the solar system as something I'd defend against those who argue a geocentric model.

I mentioned a round earth as something I'd defend against those who argue a flat earth.

Likewise, I'll defend evolution against those who argue against it--because it is well attested to science. You accused me of having a "fanatical" defense of evolution, I merely pointed out that I would, likewise, defend the heliocentric model against geocentrists, and a round earth against flat-earthers.

Accusing me of being "fanatical" simply because I assert the validity of a well established scientific theory ultimately stems from the simple fact that I accept, and defend, a scientific position well accepted and established in the scientific community and which has overwhelming amounts of evidence and support behind it which you happen to not agree with. That's not fanaticism.

You know what would be fanatical? Accusing other Christians of not being "true Christians" simply because they subscribe to a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis.

When biblicists and fundamentalists believe they have more authority in determining who is a believer in the Lord Christ over and against Christ, the Apostles, the Creeds, and the Church catholic they lose all credibility. My faith is in keeping with the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, of the Creeds, the ancient fathers, and the reformers--I know where my faith rests: in Jesus Christ crucified, risen from the dead, ascended into the heavens, seated at the right hand of the Father, and coming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead.

If there are Christians here whose faith does not rest upon and come from the Holy and precious Gospel of Jesus Christ, of His death and resurrection, but instead how they read ancient Hebrew creation poetry, there's a serious problem.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

I mentioned the heliocentric model of the solar system as something I'd defend against those who argue a geocentric model.

I mentioned a round earth as something I'd defend against those who argue a flat earth.

Likewise, I'll defend evolution against those who argue against it--because it is well attested to science. You accused me of having a "fanatical" defense of evolution, I merely pointed out that I would, likewise, defend the heliocentric model against geocentrists, and a round earth against flat-earthers.

Accusing me of being "fanatical" simply because I assert the validity of a well established scientific theory ultimately stems from the simple fact that I accept, and defend, a scientific position well accepted and established in the scientific community and which has overwhelming amounts of evidence and support behind it which you happen to not agree with. That's not fanaticism.

You know what would be fanatical? Accusing other Christians of not being "true Christians" simply because they subscribe to a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis.

When biblicists and fundamentalists believe they have more authority in determining who is a believer in the Lord Christ over and against Christ, the Apostles, the Creeds, and the Church catholic they lose all credibility. My faith is in keeping with the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, of the Creeds, the ancient fathers, and the reformers--I know where my faith rests: in Jesus Christ crucified, risen from the dead, ascended into the heavens, seated at the right hand of the Father, and coming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead.

If there are Christians here whose faith does not rest upon and come from the Holy and precious Gospel of Jesus Christ, of His death and resurrection, but instead how they read ancient Hebrew creation poetry, there's a serious problem.

-CryptoLutheran

I am not qualified to render the judgment you accuse me of rendering respecting a person's relationship with God.

 

[mmksparbud]

If there are Christians here whose faith does not rest upon and come from the Holy and precious Gospel of Jesus Christ, of His death and resurrection, but instead how they read ancient Hebrew creation poetry, there's a serious problem.

Yes!! Jesus had the same problem. Our faith is in Jesus--
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Hieronymus]

I also have a "vehement almost fanatical defense" of a round earth, and a heliocentric solar system.

Again, these are things in the present we can observe, unlike how things have originated and by what means or that God spoke it into existence and / or built it Himself, as John 1:1-3 reads, as in the creation week.
We can only assess plausibilities and probabilities.
We have no video footage.

 

[Hieronymus]

That you are ignorant of the fact that modern humans have continued to evolve since coming out of Africa around 200,000 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't.

That's the assumed naturalistic model, which has enough problems and open questions of its own.
The out of Ararat model is better and supported by the factuality of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Since evolution describes (...)

It doesn't even describe it.
It assumes 'evolution did it'.

 

[BobRyan]

That you are ignorant of the fact that modern humans have continued to evolve since coming out of Africa around 200,000 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't.

That you imagine such wild stories while ignoring at the same time - actual observations in nature of 50,000 generations (which would translate to over 2 million years in human generation times of only 40 years per generation) that flatly refute all claims about human evolution much-imagined with no observations of them in nature - is simply glossed over in your story telling ... again.

Since evolution describes changes in populations over time then here are some examples of human evolution:
Populations of human beings who can digest lactose.

And their toe nails grow... we are already aware of the micro changes within the species.

What we don't see - even over 50,000 generations is macro level changes when we are in a position to actually observe all 50,000 generations in real life and on video.

And we both know it.


But if you think that a single celled animal to horse sequence is not in blind faith evolutionism's text then you are simply ignorant and have precisely no idea what you're talking about.

There is not a single text book adopting blind faith evolutionism that does not claim that all horses come from an evolutionary line that goes all the way back to single celled animals. And we both know it. Your attempt at rant ad hominem to gloss over that detail does not help your argument's flaw -- it merely exposes it to everyone.

 

[BobRyan]

I meant to draw a comparison between Christians in the whole world and Christians in the United States.

And, of course, the majority position is not necessarily the correct position. But, in this case, the view that earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years is patently absurd - the evidence is overwhelmingly against such an hypothesis.

Can you show with some sort of measured fact that Christians world-wide outside of the EU and Australia predominantly swallow blind faith evolutionism's doctrine on origins rather than accepting the Word of God?

 

[BobRyan]

Good arguments. Notice also how some go so far as to say that finding life on other worlds disproves Genesis since it proves that we aren't the center of the universe and that the Universe was not created for humanity's sake alone as they understand Genesis to be claiming. It is one false premise after another in an amazing display of genuine, or perhaps in some cases, feigned biblical doctrinal ignorance in the service of atheist assumptions.

Actually, some Christians might indeed be affected in that devastating way by the discovery of life on other worlds if they hold that identical view. But there is no legitimate biblical reason to reach such a conclusion. As you said, the creator could have placed life on other worlds both intelligent and animal kinds for his own personal reasons.

There is also the distinct possibility that that meteoroid, comet, or asteroid impacts have caused Earth life to land on other places within our solar system and beyond. So no abiogenesis need be necessary to explain its presence of life there.

BTW

Atheist scientists smugly go about as if the creation explanation for life is irrational when the exact opposite is case. All evidence points to a creator as the most logical explanation since things which are organized in the manner in which we see in nature are invariably indicative of planning organizing intellect. In fact, if we argue against a simple water pump being designed they would call us irrational, The same holds true for a camera, or a simple computer. But faced with the identical scenario in nature, with the heart, the eye, and the human brain, they suddenly claim inability to see and we are expected not to notice the sudden change in their modus operandi which is indicative of dishonesty.

Sadly the young people who witness such a display assume that they react that way because intelligent design must be the less reasonable option when in reality in many cases it is merely indicative of an hermetically sealed mentality which is pathologically averse to any explanation which might even slightly suggest a creator. Intelligent design, to such minds, immediately engenders the terrifying unacceptability of the term God when the terms God, god, gods, deity, deities, goddesses or goddess aren't even relevant.

Good points all

 

[loveofourlord]

Problem is, convincing me the bible must be taken literally will convince me the bible is wrong before evolution, all the information and facts I know about evolution show it's true, and is the same for many, it's the demand that the bible be taken literally when sience says otherwise that drives alot of people away.

 

[Jipsah]

I find your vehement almost fanatical defense of this evolution idea which surfaced almost two thousand years after Christ died and approx. 4000 years after Genesis was written weird for one claiming to be a Christian.

I must have missed his "fanatical" defence of evolution. But I do like the idea that any knowledge not possessed by the time of our Lord must necessarily be invalid. I'm very fond of a lot of stuff that requires knowledge acquired a very long time after Christ ascended into Heaven. Shocking, I know, but true all the same.

Why? Well, because for a Christian to believe it demands that he also believe that Christ believed it and there is absolutely no indication that either Christ nor his Apostles ever did.

I doubt very much that our Lord and His disciples believed in Ohm's Law, but it's altogether true.

So it's really irrelevant for those who take Genesis at face value be familiar with the fine nuances of your evolution idea because that would not in any way change our view that neither Moses nor Jesus nor his 1st century disciples nor the majority of Christians who came after during most of human history ever believed or even imagined such an absurdity.

And yet living things continue to evolve, just as God designed them to.

 

[Jipsah]

Sadder still is the blind belief in abiogenesis

Which a grand total of no one here has espoused. That is what is known as attacking a strawman - attacking someone for a belief that they don't actually hold. <Laugh> Kinda like me denouncing you for your belief that whales speak French at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, and babbling on about what nonsense it is and that no one with half sense believes any such thing, and that your opinions on anything at all are thereby rendered equally nonsensical. Onliest problem is that you don't believe that whales speak French at all. (Do you?)

 

[Jipsah]

if you think that an amoeba becoming a horse is an example of "evolution" then you are simply ignorant and have precisely no idea what you're talking about.

I think these folks get their idea of evolution from Pokemon, as where Pichu evolves into Pikachu, which evolves into Raichu. They hang out at the zoo waiting for a chimp to evolve into an accountant, and it never has.

 

[Jipsah]

Were we simply 'not supposed to notice' that failure over 50,000 generations of observations in nature cannot even be found to get the prokaryote to become eukaryote amoeba much less the prokaryote to become horse - is proven failure?

And Pikachu doesn't really evolve into Raichu, either. They're both cartoons.

who would fall for that?

Probably the same folks who insist that God had to have created the universe in 6 solar days else He's a liar, I guess.

 

[Jipsah]

Do we really know that or do we believe that?

It's an SDA article of faith based on their curious traditions.

 

[Jipsah]

Notice also how some go so far as to say that finding life on other worlds disproves Genesis

An argument that will have to wait for some actual evidence that there is life on other worlds.

Actually, some Christians might indeed be affected in that devastating way by the discovery of life on other worlds

If their cosmology is based on a misreading of Genesis, anyway.

 

[Jipsah]

Our faith is in Jesus--

And holding to the Correct interpretation of Genesis, apparently.

 

[BobRyan]

It's an SDA article of faith based on their curious traditions.

It's called "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition. Hint - Ex 20:11 debunks blind faith evolutionism just like Genesis 1:2-2:4.

Your suggestion that believing the Bible is some odd idea that only SDA Christians have - has been debunked by every Bible believing Christian on this thread so far.

So.. .enjoy the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

And Pikachu doesn't really evolve into Raichu, either. They're both cartoons. .

Here then is the true substance of your contribution so far. Thanks for sharing that!

 

[BobRyan]

Problem is, convincing me the bible must be taken literally will convince me the bible is wrong before evolution, all the information and facts I know about evolution show it's true, and is the same for many, it's the demand that the bible be taken literally when sience says otherwise that drives alot of people away.

You are holding the facts of the discussion at too great a distance when you say that. If you pay attention to the details you will see that you have no basis at all for imagining that accepting the Bible statements on a literal virgin birth, a literal resurrection of Christ, a literal 7 day creation week and a literal world wide flood do not destroy science in the least.

Your argument is essentially that if God does what He claims to do then 2+2 cannot equal 4... which no objective reader is going to accept.

In your faith in evolutionism's doctrine on origins asserting that an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with much-imagined just-so improbable stories .. so misplaced faith. it is not science at all.