Chris,
Thanks for the comments and understanding.
I guess I still believe that Genesis was not meant as a revelation to just ancient Israel, but to all mankind forever.
Yes it was written in the framework of the period, but wouldn’t God have also meant it to be a message to us today?
I don’t think I am missing out on the message either way.
I guess with that final comment I also say grace and peace,
Neal
1 Like
Sure, it is a message that we can still hear and apply today. But since it was written in Hebrew in an ancient cultural milieu, it requires some work to understand the message, just as it requires work to apply to my life today. That’s my take.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
1 Like
We agree on that point!
Richard,
I might suggest that if as a parent you tell your child about such things which they would learn later are false, what credibility do you have when you explain the miracles of Jesus? Better to avoid fairy tales both in scripture and in real life. (But indeed the Santa Claus one is a bit hard to do because kids have so much fun with it.)
I do not agree that God tells 2 different stories of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. Both are consistent when understood. We can go into a dialogues on Genesis 2 if you want, but not sure this blog can handle it.
Neal
I’m sure it has been pointed out that physics does not rule out ex nihilo creation. [quote=“heiresnt, post:219, topic:36232”]
I stubbornly stick with the premise that all scripture is “God breathed” and as such does not lie.
[/quote]
That’s fine (I believe that too) but of course you cannot use 2 Tim 3:16 to support that belief, that would be the ultimate circular argument. (Not to mention that any book can claim to be inspired by god.) In fact 2 Tim 3:16 is like the sword of Damocles hanging over scripture, for if any scripture is found to be in error then 2 Tim 3:16 falls and we are left with a house of cards.
Not to mention that 2 Tim 3:16 does not spell out what qualifies as scripture. Those of us who are Protestants we have to rely on our own version of Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, namely that the 66 books in our canon all belong there. No books that shouldn’t have made it did, and no books that should have made it were left out.
Good point, but I think there is universal acceptance that Genesis and the Pentateuch are scripture.
I missed replying to this comment. My understanding is that the law of conservation of energy, or some refer to it as the last of the conservation of mass energy, would rule out “ex nihilo” creation as a scientific possibility.
I think though some on this blog are tired of this argument.
There is no “conservation of mass energy,” E=mc^2 makes that explicit. There is (we assume) conservation of energy. Energy comes in positive (think kinetic) and negative (anything bound, like an electron or a planet) quantities. Very rough approximations show that a total energy of the universe of zero is possible. So the universe might be, from an energy perspective, nothing from nothing. It may just be a separation of zero energy into positive and negative pieces.
I’m not proposing this, just mentioning it.
Confusing as it seems, the conservation of energy is fundamental physics, Some say mass energy due to the E=mc2 formula but really mass is just another form of latent energy. I thought this link explains it pretty well.
Hi Neal,
Well, you asked for it. 
CONTRADICTION 1
A discrepancy in the order of the creation of plants and man.
Genesis 2:5, 7-8 (NASB)
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground...Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
The order of the events in this passage is clear, God made man, then a garden, then placed the man in the garden that he had made. However, Genesis 1 has man created after animals and plants.
CONTRADICTION 2
A discrepancy in the order of the creation of animals/birds and man.
Genesis 2:18-20 (NASB)
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
The text clearly states that Adam was created before animals and birds, but Genesis 1 has man created after them.
CONTRADICTION 3
The Genesis 2 creation narrative has the creation of the “beasts of the field and the birds of the sky” between the creation of Adam and Eve, which is another discrepancy from the Genesis 1 narrative.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
There is no mention of fish in the Genesis 2 narrative.
A summary of the order of the creation of living things of the 2 creation accounts:
Genesis 1
DAY 3: Plants
DAY 5: Fish and Birds
DAY 6: Animals
DAY 6: Man
Genesis 2
Man
Plants
Animals/Birds
Woman
Seeing that on top of this the 2 accounts use different words for, “God” and obvious different writings styles (I would add on top of that they come from different theological perspectives), can you explain to me, Neal, how one can objectively hold that the G2 account is merely a detailed version of the 6th day from G1?
3 Likes
Well yes, we would be lying if we lied about these things to our kids. Which is why some of us do not, for example, tell our children that a fat man squeezes down our non-functional chimney to bring them presents. Despite what they have heard, that is not the fun of Christmas.
I do understand there is a cultural acceptability to lying to children about Santa, storks and fairies, but it still is lying. Perhaps there is a way to say it is not for poor motives, but it is still telling untruths. Right?
2 Likes
It’s a story, no?
Telling a story is great. Reading books to children, inviting them to imagine, and watching movies with them is not a quite the same as “the stork, the tooth-fairy, Santa Clause”. In those cases, we tell the story, and encourage kids to think it is really real, when it is not.
I understand that this is part of american culture. It is clear that most kids do not grow up scarred or confused about what is or is not reality and fantasy. I’m not giving a guilt trip to anyone here, but it does appear to be more than a story. it appears to be a lie.
2 Likes
Totally understood.
What’s the difference between fiction and a lie? To me, it looks like fiction. A long, drawn out fiction, but fiction.
Fiction is fiction when it is labeled “fiction”.
Fiction is fiction, but it might also be a lie, if it is intentionally and deceptively labeled “non-fiction”
2 Likes
Yep. I never did understand that stuff. In my family we were never taught about the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus.
1 Like
While I’ll avoid any parallels with some YEC positions, ( guess I blew that )will just comment the it seems to common in my circles to present Santa from the beginning as something fun we do that is make-believe, so they can enjoy the fantasy yet know it is really just made up.
2 Likes
But the fiction is always apparent in the end, by design. And it’s purely for the entertainment of all concerned. What other lies is that true of? Whatever else you want to say about it, the word “lie” doesn’t seem properly descriptive to me. Maybe it’s semantics though.
Nothing wrong with that! I kept the custom with my kids even in the wilds of Taiwan. It was fun
1 Like
Post deleted
Let’s remember the context.
Backing away from a debate about Santa, this just cannot be the best response. Even if we take a non-literal reading of Genesis, it would is very fraught to compare that with the man-made fiction of Santa Claus. If that is what Genesis is, I see why it would impact our trust in the whole testimony.
This is just not a helpful or accurate reponse.
1 Like