Can the Book of Genesis Be Reconciled with the Evolutionary History of the World Without a “God of the Gaps”?

[1Cor15.54 (Massimiliano)]

@Arvis

Comparing it to the Holocaust is quite something

That is not what I did, and even a basic level of reading comprehension (or a modicum of principle of charity) should make that perfectly clear.

My point was simply that God’s permission of something does not imply His approval of it, much less that the thing itself is good.

I invoked the Holocaust solely to illustrate that distinction: divine permission doesn’t entail divine approval. It was never intended as a direct comparison, and anyone reading my argument with a reasonable degree of comprehension and good faith should have no difficulty recognizing that.

@Arvis

It does follow for the reformers and for many Christians today, that’s the thing.

Sure. But there is simply no logical and theological connection between Luther’s initial protests * and the radical, novel and revolutionary doctrines he went on to advance later. None whatsoever.

The fact that so many people subsequently embraced positions that flatly contradicted what Luther himself had stated in 1517 does not make those positions any more justified or defensible.

In antiquity, the majority of Christians embraced Arianism. They were wrong. Plain and simple.

*Once again, his verbatim words: “If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these difficulties would be readily resolved; indeed, they would not exist at all.

Source: Martin Luther, Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum, 31 October 1517, Thesis 91.

How any of that could possibly justify the vastly more radical claims Luther went on to make is frankly beyond me.

According to Luther’s own words, the problem lay not in the Church’s doctrine, but in the sinful conduct of many within the Church.

[Roman]

@Roman

1. Revelation 12 contains recognizable echoes of Genesis 3, particularly the ancient serpent, the woman, and her offspring (Revelation 12:9, 17; Genesis 3:15). Yet I don’t see an equally clear connection between the war in heaven and the division of the waters in Genesis 1:6–7. Beyond the symbolic parallels you outline in Section 4, what leads you to prefer this particular correspondence with the second day of Creation?

@ShawnTMurphy

1. The imagery is interesting, but I have focused on the size of the fall. As I said, 1/3 of the hosts of heaven is an unbelievable large number, which include the princess and elders of heaven. The Sumerian Kings list helps with naming the other eight elders who helped to rule over hell. Lucifer is listed in Issaiah and Aholah and Aholibah are described in Ezekiel for the damage they did to heaven. Nothing is comparable to heaven being almost town in two.

I asked for the textual grounds for connecting Genesis 1:6–7 specifically with the war in Revelation 12. You describe the scale of the supposed angelic fall and introduce additional figures, but you do not explain what in the two biblical passages justifies that particular correspondence.

@Roman

2. You describe Genesis 1:6–7 and Revelation 12 as accounts of the same primordial event, while also emphasizing the speculative and figurative nature of your interpretation. What, in your view, justifies treating this correspondence as referring to one actual event rather than as merely a symbolic parallel between the two passages?

@ShawnTMurphy

2. This is not a one-off comparison. We have centuries of evidence that treating the book of Revelation as prophesy is folly. But if you look at all of the horrible events in this book, including the battle of Armageddon, they describe the most horrible event of our history.

I asked what justifies identifying the events described in these two passages as one actual event rather than treating them as symbolically related. You argue for reading Revelation as referring to the past. But even if we accepted that reading, it would not establish that Genesis 1:6–7 describes the same event.

@Roman

3. Finally, what kinds of textual or theological considerations would lead you to substantially revise or set aside this proposed correspondence?

@ShawnTMurphy

3. I have come to this conclusion by looking at all the books and works which were destroyed by the roman empire. Fo instance, Enoch was in the early cannon, and it mentioned in Jude, yet it was declared heresy. Enoch tells this story. And if you read the anathema of Justinian against the most prolific biblical scholar who has ever lived, Origen of Alexndria, you see the same story being told. BTW Origen is still considered a great church father.

I asked what textual or theological considerations could lead you to revise or abandon your proposed correspondence. You explain which sources led you to adopt your interpretation. These are two different questions.

So my three questions remain unanswered. I was asking about the textual basis of the correspondence, the grounds for identifying two passages as descriptions of one actual event, and the conditions under which that identification would need to be reconsidered.

I am not asking for more details of the proposed reconstruction. I am asking what justifies it.

[St.Roymond]

@1Cor15.54

a decisive victory over an enemy doesn’t necessarily mean that the enemy has immediately ceased to exercise any influence.

I knew a pastor who had been a colonel in the Marines. His comment on the Cross was, “enemy defeated, but the mop-up is going to be a bitch”.

@ShawnTMurphy

The story of Adam and Eve takes place in paradise which we know from Jesus to be a spiritual realm. But we also know that it’s a spiritual realm because Adam and Eve can see the angels around them and it is quite an idyllic place. That is in stark comparison to their life on earth long after the material world was created.

Paradise is two realms at once, the spiritual and the physical. If it had been purely spiritual there would have been no need for the angel with the sword.

@ShawnTMurphy

The Bible describes two beginnings one in Genesis and one and John. It also has two falls,

According to second-Temple Jews, the Bible has three falls: in the Garden, in the opening of Genesis 6, and at Babel.

[Caligo]

That’s a very rich seam you’re tapping into there. It belongs to a certain category that had its moment in the sun. Much water has flowed under the bridge over the millennia though. If it matters I’m also interested in religion the way you are but atheism, agnosticism are on the rise and theism isn’t as strong as it used to be.

[graft2vine (Ethan אֵיתָן)]

@Bill_II

If you think the Genesis creation story is the biggest stumbling block you need to consider the other “fairy tales” in the Old Testament. Like a floating ax head, a talking donkey, a finger writing on the wall, etc, etc. Those are probably a bigger intellectual barrier. And before you invoke, “Well those are just miracles”, realize creation could also be considered a miracle.

The Genesis creation narrative is fundamentally different because it is the structural blueprint of the framework itself. It defines the very setting of space, time, geology, and biology in which all of human history and every subsequent miracle takes place.

If a modern student or skeptic looks at that foundational blueprint and concludes that the text gets the basic physical mechanics of our planetary structure completely wrong—basing it on an unscientific, mythological sky-dome or a flat earth—they aren’t going to stick around to debate whether an ax head floated. They will discard the entire book as unreliable before they even reach chapter 2.

[Bill_II]

@moderators This thread has devolved greatly from the OP and appears to be descending into an argument back and forth. Perhaps it is time to close this thread.

[Bill_II]

@graft2vine

The Genesis creation narrative is fundamentally different because it is the structural blueprint of the framework itself.

Says you.

@graft2vine

It defines the very setting of space, time, geology, and biology in which all of human history and every subsequent miracle takes place.

There is no science in the Bible so this is just your take on what you think the text says.