1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are two accounts with different explicit language. In one, God's speech is effective in creating humanity. In the other, God forms man from dust and breathes into him, and later forms Eve from his side. I think the two are complementary as long as we don't force them to be historical. If one does try to force the accounts together into a history account, one ends up with God merely talking to himself before actually doing something. That approach does not do justice to the power of God's speech as Genesis 1 (and other passages) describes it.

    I think it is better to recognize that both our creation by God's word and our creation from dust are metaphors that reveal something beyond human comprehension in pictures we can understand. Both pictures are true, just as all of Jesus' illustrations about the kingdom of God are true.

    Yes, and the dust is just as explicit as God's breath. But, I don't think God has literal breath, and I think there's a play on words happening here because "Spirit" and "wind" are the same Hebrew word. I think God breathing into Adam represents man receiving the image of God. Adam was God-breathed and Scripture is God-breathed, but in both cases this is a picture that indicates something beyond our comprehension, not an objective scientific statement.

    Yes, humans were sexual beings from the beginning. Science says the same thing. I agree that Scripture does not reveal all the scientific details of humanity's origin, but I don't think that rules out what science can reveal. God tells Adam that "from [dust] you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19). I don't see this as ruling out the various steps that take place between a person dying and their body returning to dust.

    I think it's important to realize that we are but dust as well -- that doesn't just apply to Adam. We are made from dust too, and that doesn't rule out what science can tell us about conception and human development.

    Just like Genesis 3 is explicit about the serpent talking because it is "more crafty than any other beast of the field", contrary to theories about it being possessed by Satan or being a form of Satan.

    But perhaps we should allow the rest of God's revelation to shed light on what we read in Genesis.
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Let the rest of Scripture speak:

    Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

    Psalms 148:1-14
    1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
    2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
    3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
    4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
    5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
    6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
    7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
    8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
    9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
    10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:
    11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:
    12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children:
    13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
    14 He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the LORD.

    Isaiah 40:22-28
    22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
    23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
    24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
    25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
    26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
    27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
    28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

    Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

    Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

    1Corinyhians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
     
  3. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, OldReg. As usual, when you quote Scripture instead of atheists, I agree with you.

    Yes, that's a great verse. Note that Malachi doesn't limit God's human creations to Adam and Eve, but he says that one God has created us. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. The existence of natural processes to explain our conception and development does not change the fact that we are a creation of God!

    I also appreciate the rest of the verses you quoted, including those that make clear that God made everything, not just what existed 6,000 years ago, and not just what Genesis 1 itemizes. And, Psalm 148 is another wonderful affirmation that God created by his command -- which is in no way contradicted by the intermediary means described elsewhere in Scripture and revealed in nature itself.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    25,382
    Likes Received:
    2,185
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who else could it have been and why is satanic/demonic possession so unlikely?

    "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it"

    "And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly"

    "And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
    And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea"

    HankD
     
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    25,382
    Likes Received:
    2,185
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, Bro Mercury you do have that witness.

    And you make a decent point, for instance: pregnancy is not a random/chance process but follows predefined and predetermined rules.

    Although I disagree concerning TE vs. creation, I see your point.


    HankD
     
  6. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The mechanism of evolution, natural selection, has never been proven and is now discredited.
     
  7. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do think the serpent represents Satan. But, the reason Satanic/demonic possession is unlikely based on a literal, historical reading of Genesis 3 is that it says the serpent spoke because it was crafty, not because it was possessed. Not only is Satan left unmentioned, but another reason is given for the serpent's speech.

    I think that's because of the type of literature Genesis 3 is -- a type of fable -- and not because Satan wasn't involved. So, I see the serpent as representing Satan, the tree of life as representing God's sustaining power, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as representing experiential knowledge of right and wrong, Adam and Eve as representing the first humans, etc. I read the account as being closer to Jotham's fable in Judges 9:7-15 or Jehoash's fable in 2 Kings 14:9: an imaginative story that relates true events through highly figurative means. I think Romans 1:20-25 recounts the same fall of humanity in a more prosaic form.

    Yes, it followed predetermined rules, but some steps appear to be random, such as how DNA from the two parent cells combine. I think the randomness is real, but it doesn't prevent God from doing what he wants to do.

    Thanks. [​IMG]
     
  8. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    So when a lion chases a herd of antelopes, it isn't the less fit that are more likely to get eaten before they have many offspring? When trees grow in a dense forest, it isn't the ones that do a better job of getting sunlight or being more efficient with less sunlight that will survive and reproduce more?

    Even most young-earth creationists have admitted that natural selection is a real force. They just dispute how much it could accomplish over long periods of time, or dispute how the variation comes about that must exist for natural selection to do anything. Even the oft-maligned peppered moths are a valid example of natural selection. While both light-coloured and dark-coloured moths existed in the population, the dark-coloured became more prevalent when that colouring allowed them to better blend in with their environment, and the light-coloured became more prevalent when their environment changed to make that colouring more effective for blending in. That is natural selection.

    Since natural selection does not even deal with how variation is added to the gene pool (how the light- and dark-coloured moths came about in the first place), but only says that the environment will multiply the most beneficial variations, I don't see why anyone would dispute it, even if they didn't accept evolution.
     
  9. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolutionists dispute it as a mechanism for bringing about permanent change in a species.

    At the micro-biological level, Behe has conclusively shown that natural selection as a mechanism for change is an impossibility.

    Species can't change into other species by natural selection. Evolution is impossible.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "At the micro-biological level, Behe has conclusively shown that natural selection as a mechanism for change is an impossibility."

    One, you need to show how he has done so. I don't think that he has convinced many people.

    Two, you do realize that Behe accepts common descent including the shared descent of humans and the other apes, right?
     
  11. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's his claim, but I don't know how he can say that when he shows that at the cellular level, organism are irreducibly complex.

    He talks about chasms that can't be bridged, etc.

    I think Behe is trying to save his job or credibiltiy in academic circles when he confesses that he still believes in common descent.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    25,382
    Likes Received:
    2,185
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One more thing Mercury, if you are refering to Genesis 1:26 then this is in all likelihood the Trinity taking counsel together.

    And God (Elohim - Pl.) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    There are two plurals in Hebrew: dual(two) and plural (more than two, which is the case with Elohim).

    Then Genesis 3:22
    And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    In this passage the connective name of God "LORD-God" (YHVH-Elohim) Yaweh (The Tetragrammaton)-Elohim is used.

    The Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is a concatenation of all the tenses of the verb "to be" and means the Eternal One.

    The persons of Elohim are therefore all eternal, the Father, the Logos and the Spirit took counsel together.

    HankD
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "That's his claim, but I don't know how he can say that when he shows that at the cellular level, organism are irreducibly complex."

    His grand example is the bacterial flagellum. Yet it can be shown that simpler examples of flagellum exist and that many of the pieces have other uses in the cell and were likely coopted for use in the flagellum.
     
  14. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I think that's a possibility too (either that or an angelic counsel, as Job 38:7 may suggest). But, my point was that God's speech is effectual, so an interpretation that makes God's speech merely discussion (or counsel) before acting is probably wrong.

    Instead, I think both God creating by speaking and God creating by forming from ground describe same thing. They are not consecutive statements, but complementary pictures. If you treat them as consecutive, it contradicts Hebrews 11:3 and similar passages.

    Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    25,382
    Likes Received:
    2,185
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is why I included the Genesis 3 verse which uses the title LORD-God (YHVH-Elohim) all the persons in the Elohim Godhead are eternal (the meaning of YHVH) therefore it is unlikely that the passage is referring to angels which are created beings.

    I don’t treat them as consecutive but I haven’t completely cracked that nut as to their being complimentary (to my own satisfaction).


    HankD
     
Loading...