Story of creation: Genesis.

[Kbertsche]

This kind of argument is why I brought in the Adam and Eve narrative, which if we are going to be consistent, your argument would relegate it to the status of a polemic as well which is the foundation upon which the relationship between God and man is built in both the Israelite and later the Christian religions unless you would argue that the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1 is meant as a polemic as well. If Genesis is not meant to be literal then it is no more than the evolution of the concept of God or Gods and not a revelation from a God anymore than Aten, the first monotheistic God, was revealed to the Egyptians. Besides, if God didn't communicate these things to the authors, what exactly did he reveal, and how exactly did he reveal it? How is the so called revelation any different than the Egyptian concept of Aten?

I recommend listening to R.C. Sproul's daily broadcast for today (3-18) and yesterday (3-17) at http://www.ligonier.org/rym/. Today he discussed the difficulties in interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, and the elements which lead some to think it is non-historical (use of imagery, talking animals). As Sproul says, because of these elements, some people who view this as the inspired word of God view it as an inspired fable, somewhat like a parable. Sproul also gives the reasons that he himself believes it is actual history, not myth or fable.

[Doug Shaver]

I thought it sounded a bit as if you were saying you don't believe God talks through the Bible, and hence you don't read it.

OK, I can see why you thought so.

If I misunderstood that, I apologize, but am still left a little confused at the original intent.

My original intent was simply to question the specific implication that if I disagree with something that an apologist tells me, then I am disagreeing with God. It could be so, but I think I'm entitled to an explanation of why I should think so. Even if I had no doubt that God was real, I can hardly just take someone's word for it when they tell me, "Here is where you can get some really important information about God."

[JimL]

I recommend listening to R.C. Sproul's daily broadcast for today (3-18) and yesterday (3-17) at http://www.ligonier.org/rym/. Today he discussed the difficulties in interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, and the elements which lead some to think it is non-historical (use of imagery, talking animals). As Sproul says, because of these elements, some people who view this as the inspired word of God view it as an inspired fable, somewhat like a parable. Sproul also gives the reasons that he himself believes it is actual history, not myth or fable.

Why the recommendation? I know why people like Sproul believe or preach Genesis to be literal history. They believe it, or preach it, because to do otherwise would be to deny the intent of the authors and thereby deny any truth to that which follows. Adam was meant to be an historical figure, a man who lived and died at the ripe old age of 930 yrs, having many offspring leading to Noah leading to Shem leading to Abraham leading to Jesse leading to David etc etc. until we arrive at Jesus. So of course, in order for one to be a believer, he has no choice but to believe the first man being formed of actual mud, woman of mans rib, magical trees, cherubim with flaming swords, and talking snakes, not to mention talking donkey's.

[Doug Shaver]

I recommend listening to R.C. Sproul's daily broadcast . . . . Sproul also gives the reasons that he himself believes it [Genesis] is actual history, not myth or fable.

I listened to the first installment and about half the second.

He made a couple of jabs as skeptics who base their rejection of Genesis' factual historicity on a naturalistic presupposition that miracles cannot happen. His point is well taken as to skeptics who actually do beg the question that way.

It seems to me, though, that Sproul's own argument rests on a presupposition of his own. Specifically, it seems to presuppose scriptural inerrancy as laid out in the Chicago Statement.

I have seen plenty of arguments against the historical credibility of Genesis that do not depend in any way, even implicitly, on denying the possibility of any supernatural events. But I cannot recall ever seeing an argument for its credibility that does not depend explicitly on affirming its divine inspiration. Apologists who make accusations about circular arguments ought to give that some thought, I would suggest.

[whag]

The problem here is that you are trying to define inspiration of the text by interpreting it according to a 21st century expectation of the purpose and goals of such a text. That is most likely not what Genesis 1 is. It's form, historical context, and similarities and differences from its contemporary analogues (creation myths from other cultures) point to it being not an attempt at describing the technical nature of God's creative act, but rather a polemic against the contemporary conceptions of the cosmos as the manifestation of a set of capricious gods and demi-gods.

Jim, this is true. Some of these gods were animal and nature gods, representative of what terrified them and fed their bellies.

In Genesis, God is creator and Lord of all the gods of the surrounding nations. He singularly brings order from Chaos simply by His word, the things worshiped by the contemporaries are demoted and arranged specifically to show them as created things, unworthy of any sort of worship. Further, contrary to most contemporary myths, mankind is the purposed and beloved creation of God, a pinnacle of His creative act.*

Some skeptics might not be open to a system whereby the worship of things below God was practically inevitable and kind of natural when you think about it. Nature was understandably feared and revered. Where is the error in creating systems of religious belief based on what weather and animals represented to them?

And in telling the creation story in this fashion, Genesis becomes and is the revealed Word of God, speaking truth, very much needed in its time and place, and guiding us to a proper understanding of who He is in relation to the creation and ourselves.*

But to some skeptics, even the figurative interpretation because of the context of what humans were exposed to in past ages. It's hard for some people to identify with the belief that nature worship (like some indigenous practice today) was inherently wrong given the circumstances human beings and their ancestors dealt with. It hasn't really been established that monotheism was obvious to primitive people.

[IamLives]

The main point is that no matter how one tries to interpret Genesis, i.e. creation in seven days, seven thousand days, seven million days, or whatever, our galaxy, our solar system, our sun and earth wasn't the beginning of creation, it came long after, billions and billions of years after the birth of many other galaxies.

I don't want to present any argument to you, since not one person in this thread has knowledge of what's being discussed, we weren't there, therefore we don't know how it happened. It's hard for a natural, carnal creation such as a mortal man to explain the what cannot be understood, to grasp the concept of true divinity, and understand what exactly eternity is capable of. However, what i would like to do, is speculate with you, and anyone else in this thread. Let us think about this topic subjectively with open minds.

What I'm thinking is, maybe God created us spiritually, and just as now, how we are spiritually adopted into God's family as His children, we were adopted into nature when the firmament became separated from earth. The waters rise above the earth, and when it settles the earth is the round sphere orbiting in a natural galaxy with laws of nature. We can't really say that the earth was always a sphere, but if God made it rain on a flat earth, and slowly let the black hole He placed underneath the earth pull the waters to it, becoming the middle part of our earth, holding our earth together, maybe even being our gravity, after one year of Noah's Ark floating, we would have a spherical object consisting of 70% water that we know today as earth. Beforehand we would have been apart of "God-nature," a spiritual type of nature which abides by His will, and therefore means that humans could live on forever before the fall of man, Nowadays we have this physical type of nature we reside in, meaning everything is limited, even our own Sun is going to get extremely huge and explode or whatever, it will become no more. If God never willed for man to fall, then He couldn't have allowed for our Galaxies to die, since not even we could die until we were given knowledge of good and evil. So that's kinda what I'm thinking, a God controlled setup of everything He created within the six days of the Genesis account, before the fall of man, or flood, and now a natural setup willed and destined by laws, after the fall of man, or flood.

[whag]

God made it rain on a flat earth, and slowly let the black hole He placed underneath the earth pull the waters to it.

You lost me at "flat earth" and "black hole."

[JimL]

I don't want to present any argument to you, since not one person in this thread has knowledge of what's being discussed, we weren't there, therefore we don't know how it happened. It's hard for a natural, carnal creation such as a mortal man to explain the what cannot be understood, to grasp the concept of true divinity, and understand what exactly eternity is capable of. However, what i would like to do, is speculate with you, and anyone else in this thread. Let us think about this topic subjectively with open minds.

What I'm thinking is, maybe God created us spiritually, and just as now, how we are spiritually adopted into God's family as His children, we were adopted into nature when the firmament became separated from earth. The waters rise above the earth, and when it settles the earth is the round sphere orbiting in a natural galaxy with laws of nature. We can't really say that the earth was always a sphere, but if God made it rain on a flat earth, and slowly let the black hole He placed underneath the earth pull the waters to it, becoming the middle part of our earth, holding our earth together, maybe even being our gravity, after one year of Noah's Ark floating, we would have a spherical object consisting of 70% water that we know today as earth. Beforehand we would have been apart of "God-nature," a spiritual type of nature which abides by His will, and therefore means that humans could live on forever before the fall of man, Nowadays we have this physical type of nature we reside in, meaning everything is limited, even our own Sun is going to get extremely huge and explode or whatever, it will become no more. If God never willed for man to fall, then He couldn't have allowed for our Galaxies to die, since not even we could die until we were given knowledge of good and evil. So that's kinda what I'm thinking, a God controlled setup of everything He created within the six days of the Genesis account, before the fall of man, or flood, and now a natural setup willed and destined by laws, after the fall of man, or flood.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to rationalize that which you have come to believe, but the fact is that we do know approximately when the universe, our universe began, how the galaxies formed, how the stars and planets like our sun and earth were formed, how black holes form and how gravity works, not to mention how human life evolved. I would suggest that you aquire a little bit of this knowledge about these things first before trying to make sense of what you believe without any of that knowledge. Thanks

[whag]

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to rationalize that which you have come to believe, but the fact is that we do know approximately when the universe, our universe began, how the galaxies formed, how the stars and planets like our sun and earth were formed, how black holes form and how gravity works, not to mention how human life evolved. I would suggest that you aquire a little bit of this knowledge about these things first before trying to make sense of what you believe without any of that knowledge. Thanks

I like that he thinks a black hole would pull water "slowly." There's a lot to like in his description, from a comedic standpoint.

[JimL]

I like that he thinks a black hole would pull water "slowly." There's a lot to like in his description, from a comedic standpoint.

It is comical in one sense, but it is kind of sad as well that people will go to such lengths in order to confirm rather than to test their core beliefs. Btw, the fact that it is comical is not to denegrate you "Iamlives", as misunderstandings can be comical and are something that we are all prone to.

[whag]

It is comical in one sense, but it is kind of sad as well that people will go to such lengths in order to confirm rather than to test their core beliefs. Btw, the fact that it is comical is not to denegrate you "Iamlives", as misunderstandings can be comical and are something that we are all prone to.

Excellent point.

Iamlives, I apologize if that was harsh. It's just that astronomical features such as galaxies and black holes are fascinating phenomena that we actually have learned a lot about. Learn with us. =)

[whag]

I recommend listening to R.C. Sproul's daily broadcast for today (3-18) and yesterday (3-17) at http://www.ligonier.org/rym/. Today he discussed the difficulties in interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, and the elements which lead some to think it is non-historical (use of imagery, talking animals). As Sproul says, because of these elements, some people who view this as the inspired word of God view it as an inspired fable, somewhat like a parable. Sproul also gives the reasons that he himself believes it is actual history, not myth or fable.

How does a learned philosopher theologian not know that Genesis 1-11 is an entirely different genre than pure recorded history? That boggles the mind.

[IamLives]

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to rationalize that which you have come to believe, but the fact is that we do know approximately when the universe, our universe began, how the galaxies formed, how the stars and planets like our sun and earth were formed, how black holes form and how gravity works, not to mention how human life evolved. I would suggest that you aquire a little bit of this knowledge about these things first before trying to make sense of what you believe without any of that knowledge. Thanks

Whoa... When did I say that I believe any of that. It was all a "what if" scenario. Reading the comments about my post was humorous. However, on a serious note, you have no idea what I was presenting. I'm talking about a deity who resides outside of the natural world and natural time that your beliefs are so grounded in, placing nature above God saying, "Well God can't simply speak light into existence, He has to create (Assuming you'll give Him any credit at all) some tiny organism which evolves into a Sun." That's non sense, with God anything is possible and the door is open for discussion. I told you, subjectiveness, openness, and you shut me down because you know how a sun and earth is formed, or you think you do. See your gonna tell me it evolved from something, right? But I am gonna allude to the book of John, all things came into existence through the Word... Interesting concepts we have, but who's right? Ultimately i'll say that God is the origin of everything that we know or are aware of, and your gonna say, well i have no idea, but if it's against God, you are incorrect.

[IamLives]

I like that he thinks a black hole would pull water "slowly." There's a lot to like in his description, from a comedic standpoint.

Don't scientists believe or think that there is a black hole in the center of the earth?

[whag]

Don't scientists believe or think that there is a black hole in the center of the earth?

No. A black hole is the remnant of an exploded star. I recommend reading the wiki pages on earth and black holes. They're very informative. The data on them is very reliable, especially earth.