Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Jipsah]

John's Gospel starts this way
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I'm gratified that you've read that much of the New Testament.

 

[Jipsah]

James Barr is one atheist who fully admits that there is not a single professor of Hebrew or OT studies at any world-class university that does not know that the T.E. Bible bending of Genesis 1 is a total farce.

Are there a great many more atheists you can adduce to support your position?

 

[BobRyan]

Are there a great many more atheists you can adduce to support your position?

Only when you claim it would take a christian rocket-scientist to read Genesis and know enough to accept it as it reads.

the point remains - that even Bible-rejecting atheists can read it and state what it means.

While Bible-bending self-conflicted T.E.'s remain in the shadows confined to little rants.

 

[Jipsah]

Notice everywhere we have a Bible statement some creed-ists want to delete the Bible and replace it with "creed"

Creeds come from the Bible, Bob. I'm amazed that you don't know that! But then SDA kind of make up their own creeds on the fly, don't they?

-- right up until the Bible says something to contradict one of their creeds - exposing their creed as a man-made-creed.

For instance?

Then again, I can't see how an SDA can honestly object to man-made creeds when they all accept the man-made doctrine of Investigative Judgement. Different strokes for different folks, eh Bob?

 

[BobRyan]

Creeds come from the Bible, Bob.

They often do claim that.

And on a number of points they are not in error.

But the Bible is the judge of the creed.

the creed is not the judge of the Bible

 

[BobRyan]

Then again, I can't see how an SDA can honestly object to man-made creeds when they all accept the man-made doctrine of Investigative Judgement. Different strokes for different folks, eh Bob?

surely you did not just begin to imagine to yourself that the only ones admitting to the Bible facts on origins and creation in Genesis - are SDAs?? Did you just forget this entire thread and then begin imagining that to yourself?

Why do that?

Who goes for that??

 

[Jipsah]

But the Bible is the judge of the creed.

Shazam! Let me write that one down for future reference! <Laugh>

the creed is not the judge of the Bible

Dang, you got another'n right!

The creeds are summaries of what Christians believe, having been drawn from the Bible. I reckon you know that, but you have to do the appropriate posturing and blowing as though you didn't just to keep up appearances.

The point was that since the Church accepts the things I noted as Christianity 101 stuff, your fears that those ideas will be attacked because Gen 1 isn't an engineering text (as your lot seems to want to think) are remarkably silly.

 

[Jipsah]

surely you did not just begin to imagine to yourself that the only ones admitting to the Bible facts on origins and creation in Genesis - are SDAs?? Did you just forget this entire thread and then begin imagining that to yourself?

It had something to do with the fact that I'm talking to an SDA, and it seems to be representative of the sort of stuff that they believe. (That, and Investigative Judgement and Spacemen and other not-from-the-Bible stuff of that ilk.)

Who goes for that??

Shot who?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's is balderdash based on wishful thinking and an irresistible urge to contradict for lack of an adequate rebuttal.

Name someone in this thread who believes the things you mentioned. Name someone in this thread who made one of those arguments.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

Name someone in this thread who believes the things you mentioned. Name someone in this thread who made one of those arguments.

-CryptoLutheran

I never claimed that anyone on this thread had made any of those statements.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your modus operand seems to exclude that and seems to tag it as mere human opinion to fix what you consider biblical absurdities.

I'm not excluding non-literal readings of the creation stories. Quite the opposite in fact.

I believe Genesis 1, and 2 and 3, etc. I just don't believe they describe literal, historical events. I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal description of how the universe came into existence, but a poetical description of creation done in such a way as to frame creation as the purposeful handiwork of God; I don't believe that Genesis 3 intends for us to believe that sin entered the world because people ate a piece of fruit, but it does describe the fall of man and the universal realities of sin and death common to us all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never claimed that anyone on this thread had made any of those statements.

And when other preconceptions were offered you stated that you don't believe those. My post was in response to that exchange.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

I'm not excluding non-literal readings of the creation stories. Quite the opposite in fact.

I believe Genesis 1, and 2 and 3, etc. I just don't believe they describe literal, historical events. I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal description of how the universe came into existence, but a poetical description of creation done in such a way as to frame creation as the purposeful handiwork of God; I don't believe that Genesis 3 intends for us to believe that sin entered the world because people ate a piece of fruit, but it does describe the fall of man and the universal realities of sin and death common to us all.

-CryptoLutheran

It wasn't a matter of eating a piece of fruit.

The fruit itself isn't the issue. It could have been a piece of cake or any other prohibition over anything which could represent the right to choose for yourself without regard to God what is morally right or wrong. The rebellious behavior itself constituted a demand for moral independence from God, to be like him in setting up moral standards. God granted that symbolic request for moral independence, but the effects, as had been warned, were costly.

But other issues concerning the right to universal sovereignty and the relation of God's creatures to that sovereignty were involved. That is demonstrated in the account of Job where the Devil is shown expressing his views concerning why God's creatures choose to serve him. God is depicted as buying loyalty via material gifts with the purpose of preventing man from being morally independent. In that way Satan sought to malign all those obedient to God [including angels] as selfish and to tag God, once more, as a dictating tyrant who wanted to keep his creatures unjustly under his foot via bribery. That's why in Revelation he is described as the accuser of our brothers who accuses them day and night before our God.

Such a accusation against God's right to rule the universe needed to be resolved and the immediate destruction of Satan was not the answer. Instead, time was needed to allow the challenge to be refuted to the fullest extent. To permit mankind the attempt to wing it on its own under the guidance of the one who claimed God's way was wrong. To permit mankind to reach the zenith of technological sophistication. To allow a rebuttal if the accusation that all of God's creatures would buckle under and curse God if things went badly for them. The primary reftation of that accusation being Jesus followed by men and angels who have remained faithful despite everything leveled against them. Once those issues had been resolved to their fullest, then God could step in and restore things to their original state.

So the fall wasn't merely a matter of just eating a piece of fruit.

 

[Hieronymus]

So relying on sight and reason to say that Jesus didn't mean the bread and wine were His body and blood is fine; but to do the same to recognize an innumerable amount of evidence which points us to an old universe, an old earth, an millions of years of evolution of life on this planet is wrong because, it is insisted, that we read a poetic telling of creation as literally true and all evidence to the contrary must be discarded.

No, those are wrong because
- they are naturalistic models i.e. God didn't do a thing, it's all just natural processes (and that's why they need a LOT of time).
- the naturalistic models have huge gaps and don't explain what we see today.
- the evidence for it is ambiguous
- naturalism is a belief.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Myth" doesn't mean "a false story" or "not true", but means a story that communicates a deeper meaning.

Biblical literal history has a deeper meaning too, you see.
Past reality is at the same time deeper in meaning.
This is how mighty God is.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not excluding non-literal readings of the creation stories. Quite the opposite in fact.

I believe Genesis 1, and 2 and 3, etc. I just don't believe they describe literal, historical events. I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal description of how the universe came into existence,

There are no technical details in there, so in that sense it doesn't describe how God did it, only THAT He did it, and that He did it in 6 days and rested on the 7th, hallowing the 7th day.

 

[Norbert L]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Dr. John Lennox, another Oxford professor believes in the Genesis account and has written a book about "Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science"

He views the creation story as "perhaps this text is a little more sophisticated than people think it is". Which I agree, more people be they Atheist or Christian alike, it's well worth a listen imo. He explains it in a brief, average and understandable manner here:

 

[JackRT]

Ahhh the opening bash against
virgin-birthists,
bodily-resurrection-ists,
ascension-of-Christ-ists,
miracles-of-Christ-ists,
Bible-creation-ists,
Bible-flood-ists,
Bible-defined-marriage-in-Genesis-2-ists

Let me be clear. A factual observation is not a bash. Nor was it intended as a bash. I regret that you took it as a bash but that is your problem not mine.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you have a survey that supports your statement that a majority of Christians believe the Genesis stories are myths?

Perhaps there is no survey, but I believe it is clear that it is only in the USA that a sizeable fraction of Christians take the Genesis account as literal. So I am quite confident that, worldwide at least, the majority of Christians do indeed take the account as myth.

 

[mmksparbud]

Perhaps there is no survey, but I believe it is clear that it is only in the USA that a sizeable fraction of Christians take the Genesis account as literal. So I am quite confident that, worldwide at least, the majority of Christians do indeed take the account as myth.

Luk_18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?