Tunnel vision regarding Genesis


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

(George Brooks) #23


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” ?

(Eakin C) #24

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.

(Randy) #25

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:

(Randy) #27

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

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #28

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.

(Phil) #29

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

(Eakin C) #30

Thank you. Very gracious.

(Eakin C) #31

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?


(Christy Hemphill) #32

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.




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.


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

(George Brooks) #35


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

(Eakin C) #36

You read and accept the information as God has given it, as only He was there. As for the plants, there was already light. The planetary creation was made to conform to the day pattern already established with the creation of light and darkness.


What makes you say this? Perhaps a few pointers would be enlightening.


Simple. Plants appear on day 3. The sun appear on day 4. Hardly enough time for the plants to die without the sun. Plus of course there was light shining already - BEFORE God made the two main lights w.r.t earth and man’s perspective.


Mr Brooks, that is most revealing of answers!
So because plants are made on the 3rd day in the presence of an existing light and with hardly enough time to die before the sun is made, evolutionists throw out the baby with the bath-water. Very surprising indeed.
Of course then the evolutionists has to worry about the faint sun paradox or the lack of oxygen or the now constant abundance of oxygen in spite of a lack of plants, or that minor little thing called abiogenesis, or lack of support for plant evolution…or the first appearance of human beings etc. etc. All of which historical things have no support in real life except rank speculation.

But it’s OK, it’s really all very scientific.


So now comes the issue: Where in the bible does history start? and who is the authority to say so? and why should they be trusted on that issue? Can we not understand the bible by our own reading? Is this what biologos is saying?

Is it historical that people lived to 900 years or is that mythical?
Is it historical that there was a world wide flood with only 8 people remaining alive after it or is that also a myth?
How to distinguish myth from fact? Who is the arbiter?
Why does Peter make the statement about the world having been destroyed by water in the flood is now also reserved for fire?

To take it to the limit then - is it historical that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified and then rose from the dead? Those two bookends sounds like myth to the scientific mind, so who is going to confirm it was historical and on what authority?

(George Brooks) #41


Actually i was more troubled by birds being made when the oceans were making fish.

And that days are being counted at all when the sun didnt even exist yet.

And that the sequence of creatiin in Genesis 2 doesnt match the sequence in Genesis 1.