Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[expos4ever]

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?

Your point being?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Methodological naturalism is how science works. If you have a problem with methodological naturalism when it comes to something like evolution, then you should also have a problem when it comes to medicine, the internal combustion engine, germ theory, gravitation. But I suspect you don't.

Methodological naturalism is only attacked in a select couple instances because it happens to offend some people's sacred cows when it comes to how they want to read the first chapter of Genesis.

If you are okay with a completely naturalistic explanation for how procreation works, but are not okay with a completely naturalistic explanation for how organisms change over time then you are engaging in hypocrisy. Science, by definition, deals only with the natural world and therefore that which is beyond and above nature--i.e. God--does not fit into the equation. God's involvement in nature is not an issue for science, it is an issue for theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your point being?

People who don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 are faithless pseudo-Christians. That was the point in quoting Luke 18:8.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

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.

that is true. it is the "belief" that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough period of time filled with just-so improbable much-imagined events".

Some would try to marry that belief to the bible.

Many just hold to that belief and don't make any attempt at all to marry it to the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

It is only in the USA where a large segment of Christians interpret Genesis literally. .

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.

Your argument that some Christian beliefs are not as popular in some other part of the world - so then that must say something about the Christian doctrine being wrong -- is so general in the "detail" that it appeals to - that it attacks almost every Christian doctrine.

The point remains.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It would seem my above post was liked, and the sentiment has been expressed.

Now imagine the outrage had I said that those who don't believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are not, truly and actually, the flesh and blood of our Savior are faithless pseudo-Christians. And yet listen to what Ignatius, disciple of St. John and successor to Peter and Paul, bishop of Antioch wrote in the year 105 AD,

"Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 6 and 7

That's okay though, since Ignatius was just another "faithless pseudo-Christian" who didn't subscribe to the innovative doctrines of the post-Reformation period, which are required in order to be a faithful Christian.

But, remember, always remember, that it's not those who deny the faith once and for all delivered who are faithless, it's those who don't subscribe to the particular ideas of modern young earth creationists that are faithless. Always remember that. After all, the Apostle never warned against sinning against the body and blood of Christ, but he did warn against not believe Genesis 1 was literally true--oh wait, I have that backward.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[expos4ever]

People who don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 are faithless pseudo-Christians. That was the point in quoting Luke 18:8.

-CryptoLutheran

Hmmm. As I suspected. That's what is so frustrating about these discussions - some people think its acceptable to substitute pontification for engagement of the actual issue.

 

[BobRyan]

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:

I really appreciate the fact that you contrast John Lennox's musings against the post you quote - where the first point is that Christ affirms this as a historical account and not zillions of days of time.

 

[Hieronymus]

Methodological naturalism is how science works. If you have a problem with methodological naturalism when it comes to something like evolution, then you should also have a problem when it comes to medicine, the internal combustion engine, germ theory, gravitation.

Are you kidding?
You think you can compare trying to reconstruct history with empirical science?

But I suspect you don't.

I suspect something else...

Methodological naturalism is only attacked in a select couple instances because it happens to offend some people's sacred cows when it comes to how they want to read the first chapter of Genesis.

I hope i have made clear that you're comparing apples with oranges.
I'll refrain from rubbing your nose in it with the rest of your post.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm. As I suspected. That's what is so frustrating about these discussions - some people think its acceptable to substitute pontification for engagement of the actual issue.

I think viacrucis' post you are quoting was being "extra-" and "hyper-" pontifical in an attempt to mock the person's post he was quoting.

Be careful about bashing someone's post that is really just there as bait.

 

[BobRyan]

So without a "proper" knowledge of the OT, one can't be saved, zat it? How very SDA sounding.

"Proper knowledge"???

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.

=============================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

Notice everywhere we have a Bible statement some creed-ists want to delete the Bible and replace it with "creed" -- right up until the Bible says something to contradict one of their creeds - exposing their creed as a man-made-creed.

Creed of the Church.
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Ah, the folks who believe that God "made the world look old" so as to deceive us. Bash away!
Where'd all the water go? <Laugh>
With the implicit marriage between siblings?

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

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

Dang, you got another'n right!

 

[BobRyan]

In the beginning! Thanks for the insight!

John's Bible starts this way ---
Genesis 1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Gen 2:1-4 " Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the

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.

John's accepted TEN Commandments of God included this - at the time of John 1
Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice the fact that the GOSPEL as John gives it - has as its foundation the CREATION fact of the Bible - known and accepted by John AND his readers.

John shows us that this creation fact is the basis and foundation for his Gospel. The VERY POINT we are discussing according to the title and the OP.

John was obviously aware of Genesis

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

I am glad you so quickly pleased -

And now - back to the actual point of the Bible texts - you claim to be pleased with...

 

[expos4ever]

I think viacrucis' post you are quoting was being "extra-" and "hyper-" pontifical in an attempt to mock the person's post he was quoting.

Be careful about bashing someone's post that is really just there as bait.

Not sure what you mean. I read a post in which the author appeared to be suggesting that to challenge the literal reading of Genesis means you are a bad person on whom God will take revenge.

Clearly, that is not responsible debate and fully deserves to be "bashed".

 

[JackRT]

Your argument that some Christian believe is not as popular in some other part of the world - so then that must say something about the Christian doctrine being wrong -- is so general in the "detail" that it appeals to - that it attacks almost every Christian doctrine.

There are in excess of 40,000 Christian churches and denominations some of which regard almost every other church or denomination to be misled and/or evil. To some here I am regarded as heretical or apostate and to some others here you are. That says a lot about we Christians and our doctrines. Notice also that historically doctrines have done more to exclude people from God than to instruct or include them.

 

[BobRyan]

There are in excess of 40,000 Christian churches and denominations some of which regard almost every other church or denomination to be misled and/or evil. To some here I am regarded as heretical or apostate and to some others here you are. That says a lot about we Christians and our doctrines. Notice also that historically doctrines have done more to exclude people from God than to instruct or include them.

Yet the Bible insists on - pure albeit-unpopular doctrine. And flatly condemns false doctrine.

Many atheists today claim to be former Christians who when convinced to have faith in evolutionism - convinced that Genesis 1 was false -- became atheists. Because one thing is for dead certain - evolutionism is the perfect doctrine on origins for the atheists.

 

[BobRyan]

Not sure what you mean. I read a post in which the author appeared to be suggesting that to challenge the literal reading of Genesis means you are a bad person on whom God will take revenge.

Clearly, that is not responsible debate and fully deserves to be "bashed".

I under stand - but the person you found posting that -- does not believe the words he put in his own post for one second. Rather he was trying to make the view he opposes appear in the worst light possible the logical fallacy of reductio absurdum... trying to get someone to take the bait.

His real interest was to mock the person that he was quoting in his post.

 

[Radrook]

I really appreciate the fact that you contrast John Lennox's musings against the post you quote - where the first point is that Christ affirms this as a historical account and not zillions of days of time.

The post I posted isn't arguing for a YEC viewpoint. If indeed I gave that impression it was unintended.

 

[nChrist]

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.

Are you making things up as you go? If not, give a link for your source. If it's just your opinion, say so. My opinion is that you're wrong.

 

[Radrook]

that is true. it is the "belief" that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough period of time filled with just-so improbable much-imagined events".

Some would try to marry that belief to the bible.

Many just hold to that belief and don't make any attempt at all to marry it to the Bible.

An amoeba into a prancing horse? But will it be able to neigh?

 

[BobRyan]

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:

I really appreciate the fact that you contrast John Lennox's musings against the post you quote - where the first point is that Christ affirms this as a historical account and not zillions of days of time.

The post I posted isn't arguing for a YEC viewpoint. If indeed I gave that impression it was unintended.

I was responding to Norbert L - who quoted you and your statement about Christ affirming the Bible account - but then posted as a response -- John Lennox. Makes a good contrast - Lennox vs Christ.