Tunnel vision regarding Genesis

As an ordinary Christian who trusts the Bible and accepts evolution, I believe the extra attention paid to Genesis 1 is not tunnel vision, but is justified for evangelism and for our children. Knowledgeable people can dismiss the authority of the Bible when the opening chapters appear to be fake history. Students’ faith can be challenged even when the subject is introduced by a sympathetic teacher. (Just for the record, I like John Walton’s “Lost World” explanation but don’t want to sidetrack this discussion.)

2 Likes

Thanks. I am sorry–I completely agree that discussing Genesis is really important–it’s the bedrock of the Biologos (and AiG and ID, RTB I guess) review. It’s only by reading with Biologos and Lamoureux, Boyd and Enns that I’ve gotten more comfortable with that. I guess that I was agreeing with @jpm that it’s not just Genesis that is important; and since the Scriptures are related, maybe there’s a richness that comes from incorporating all of that.

I haven’t read Walton yet, though I heard a review at Onscript. I am not sure I fully understand his take on the violence in the OT, but from what I hear, he’s great. I think if you post a new thread on John Walton, I’ll learn a lot–I’ll keep an eye out for that.

I’m pretty ordinary too, despite my funny picture. Nice to meet you; correct me at will. Thanks.

Thanks, Randy. I also am not quite convinced by John Walton’s understanding of Joshua.

1 Like

I agree that that is a huge problem. A problem that is realized when people come to think that what they were taught as history is indeed not true. Would it not be better if they were to realize that it is not history? That is not to say it is not important, just that it is not history

3 Likes

Yes. With great respect, I am going to have a LOT of questions for God in Heaven some day–about why it’s all so complicated.–unless the whole point of what we need to learn is that God is God, and the ability to recognize ANE vs “plain reading” of Genesis isn’t that important, after all. Like Rich Mullins said

“I can’t see how You’re leading me
Unless You’ve led me here
To where I’m lost enough to let myself be led”

2 posts were split to a new topic: The fossil record fits best with progressive creation

‘speak to the earth and it will teach you’ - Job 12:8

2 Likes

@Haywood

Nice observation!

Based on my continued interaction with ID folks, it seems they have taken the idea of “Science can prove God’s operations” and fused it to TWO goals:

  1. to prove to Atheistically-inclined scientists that God exists - - AND

  2. to justify getting Bible teachings into American public schools.

This becomes a pretty resilient “advocacy complex” - - because even when they are with Christians, instead of Atheists, they stillgenerate this fervor that nothing is more important than the idea that

“Science can detect God’s operations” < to paraphrase the general viewpoint.

@Randy, perhaps you could comment on how willing you, for example, might be to reject the entire proposition…

Would you be willing to accept the general idea that Science is suited to analyzing “lawful operations of nature” - - and that by definition, God’s work and intentions do not qualify as “lawful operations” or “variables that can be controlled for” ?

1 Like

If you don’t understand Genesis correctly, and especially its first three chapters, you will not understand the rest of the Bible. You will end up with what Paul characterizes in 2 Cor. 11:4 as a another Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel.

One exercise I would like to see is a description of the true Jesus and a definition His gospel from the Biologos admin team. My suspicion is that it will be awry from what the Bible teaches.

Colin Eakin, M.D.

1 Like

Welcome, Brother Eakin.

Welcome to the forum Dr. Eakin. I pray that God strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being today, that you may have grace to care well for your family and patients (just as Randy and I need). :slight_smile:

1 Like

So if 2 doctors is a “paradox,” what is 3?

Dr. Eakin pops his head in every once in a while. I’m waiting for him to use the word “meretricious” again to refer to evolutionary creationist approaches like he has the last two times I’ve seen him around. :slight_smile: And lest anyone think I have a chip on my shoulder about it, I say it with a wide and jovial smile. We can all be friends even in disagreement. (Especially since he was so apologetic about it last time I pointed it out! :slight_smile: )

Yes, welcome back, Colin.

1 Like

I had to google it again. Good word to throw out in conversation, though it seems a bet meretricious to do so.

1 Like

Thank you. Very gracious.

1 Like

So, for anyone reading this who denies that Genesis is literal history and believes in evolution, I would be very interested to know your answers to the following yes/no questions:

(1) Is Jesus one who will return in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on rebel sinners who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ?

(2) Is the Holy Spirit one who convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment?

(3) Is the gospel the salvation of all who, only by the power of God, repent and believe in Christ’s unique substitutionary atoning sacrifice?

Colin

1 Like

Yes, though some of that language is probably apocalyptic hyperbole. I think it means that Jesus Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

Yes.

Yes.

3 Likes

I don’t speak for BioLogos but would respond in the affirmative to those questions as well. Those holding an EC view of origins come from a wide range of theological and ecclesiastical traditions. I’m in the PCA, a theologically conservative, evangelical and confessional denomination.

3 Likes

Up until the creation of Adam, I don’t think anyone can fully understand Genesis! Plants appeared before the sun? How does that work?

3 Likes

@Edgar

And this is why Evolutionist Christians are compelled to find a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1!