The miracles of the Genesis creation account

[oxmixmudd]

Sean, the problem with your thinking is you aren't precise with your words, and it muddles your ideas. Let me explain:

Science declares that a three day dead corpse cannot come back to life.

No, science declares that a 3 day old corpse will not animate on its own. There is a difference. Specifically, Science does not, can not, declare that a miracle that will re-animate a 3 day old corpse is impossible. Science can only speak on the natural. But even to that end, there is nothing that says that at some future time, it will remain impossible to reanimate a 3 day old corpse.

Science declares that the descriptions in Genesis cannot be true.

Far too broad a brush. For example, the opening phrases very much concord with what it known of the initial moments of creation. Further, science does not say that creation is impossible over a period of 6 days - miraculously. Indeed, it says that from the correct reference frame, the 13.7 billion history of the universe could indeed be perceived by a human to pass in a mere 6 days.

What science tells us is that the universe has 13.7 billion years of history within its own reference frame. And that everthing in it is absolutely and perfectly consistent with that much time having passed. It is the Bible, which tells us God is a God of truth and not a God of deception and lies, that causes us to believe that the current state of the universe is not a miraculous fabrication by some Loki like supernatural entity. It is the Bible which tells us time for God is not like time for us, and which even makes the direct comparison for us, telling us 1000 years is like a 'day' to God, even like a watch in the night. It is the Bible which tells us in Romans 1 that the heavens reveal to the carnal man certain aspects of Gods majesty and glory. And in the end, it is the Bible, which in light of what is known about nature, which tells us that our traditional understanding of Genesis is in fact a misunderstanding. Hence the Bible itself helps us to understand itself as we grow and learn about God's creation.

OK - I just remembered you hate me carving up your responses:

Since you rely on science to determine what can and cannot be true of Genesis, why are dismissing science on what it declares about the resurrection of Christ? If the Jews were writing mythology and using symbols and allegory to create Genesis, what makes you believe they were not writing a resurrection myth? The NT writers used elements of the Genesis myth to incorporate into their stories, so why do you believe they were actually describing fact and history in the case of Jesus? Risen in three days, twelve disciples, the Trinity, all sounds just as symbolic as Genesis by your criteria. You choose to put faith in one, but not other. What's the difference exactly?

Now you will see why I tend to break up your responses. There are so many mis-statements here it is just difficult to reference them all one by one without stringing them out. But in deference to your preferences, I will simply say that I do not use science to determine what is true in the Bible. But I do use my understanding of the natural world to guide me in interpreting certain aspects of scripture, especially when the scripture is speaking of the natural world. For example, I do not interpret the 'foundations of the Earth' as literal stone pillars or foundations upon which the Earth sits, though that is one possible meaning. And the reason I don't is because I know the Earth does not rest on large stone foundations. But I did not get that understanding from the Bible.

How do I know how to interpret the NT if symbolism is used in some places in the old testament? Again, far too broad a question. But one thing that tells me I can't interpret certain things in the NT as symbolic is the ancient creeds which define the critical elements of our faith. Another is to look at what the natural world tells me about those texts, is there evidence that directly contradicts the stories? Is there a body in the tomb? Is there credible evidence the disciples faked the resurrection? Is there any textual indicator these stories are meant to be taken in some figurative fashion. And on all these fronts, the answer is no - unlike the Genesis 1 account.

Again - you must also factor in a distinction so many in your ranks do not or will not make:

The difference between what God can do and the evidence declaring what He did do.

God could have raised Christ up to heaven having never sent Him to the cross. But the evidence does not show that is what He did do. Likewise, God could have made the world in a literal 6 days and simply told us exactly what He did. But the evidence is that is not what He did do. The evidence is that God made the world over a very long period of time and then told us about it in a very general and figurative way.


Jim

[Calminian]

Science declares that a three day dead corpse cannot come back to life. Science declares that the descriptions in Genesis cannot be true. Since you rely on science to determine what can and cannot be true of Genesis, why are dismissing science on what it declares about the resurrection of Christ? If the Jews were writing mythology and using symbols and allegory to create Genesis, what makes you believe they were not writing a resurrection myth? The NT writers used elements of the Genesis myth to incorporate into their stories, so why do you believe they were actually describing fact and history in the case of Jesus? Risen in three days, twelve disciples, the Trinity, all sounds just as symbolic as Genesis by your criteria. You choose to put faith in one, but not other. What's the difference exactly?

Exactly and there are other "quote" christians that ridicule those that take literally the Resurrection account. Bishop Spong and others like him take it as allegory, and their primary reason for doing so is the fact that we now life in an age of scientific enlightenment.

[Calminian]

I think it'd be better to argue philosophically first that miracles are at least possible and then you can get to if they're actual. When showing they're actual, I'd also then use the resurrection of Christ, the best attested to miracle I know of. Finally, it's not convincing to tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible that the Bible records miracles.

Depends on your purpose. My purpose is to show that a debate on miracles must necessarily precede a debate on science in regard to the issue of origins. And this thread is not only for atheists. It also confronts theists that compromise scripture for the sake of uniformitarian science. If miracles are indeed an aspect of origins, this must be taken into account.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Let me correct myself, or should I say, correct your dancing around the issue with your lame rationalization. I didn't realize I needed to get technical here. Jesus wasn't frozen. Jesus didn't suffer hypothermia. Jesus was crucified. History shows that no one survives crucifixion. And before you lay that Josephus trip on me about one of his buddies surviving, this was only because they were taken down prematurely and given immediate medical care, yet the other two who were taken down died anyway. Jesus wasn't taken down prematurely, only after he was confirmed dead. He wasn't given medical treatment. He was buried. So in order to continue to lay your rationalization trip on me here, you would have to sponsor the swoon theory, and Idoubt you want to go there if you wanted to continue to be taken seriously.

So I go back to my original question addressed to Ox.

Right, because I'm responsible for your imprecision. I brought up the topic about death, "corpses" and resurrection because you were conflating two things (The Resurrection and the Creation Account) that were dissimilar. The Creation account that you interpret from the text has strong positive evidence counter to it. The Resurrection does not. You cannot, therefore, use the latter as an argument for the former.

It's a rational approach, not a rationalization. I wonder if you even read my entire post . . .

—Sam

[seanD]

Specifically, Science does not, can not, declare that a miracle that will re-animate a 3 day old corpse is impossible.

I would be very interested in getting a census poll from atheists confirming that claim sometime in the future. I wouldn't want to do it now, because of obvious bias.

[Calminian]

Science does not declare this; scientifically, under likely conditions, the brain of someone who has been clinically dead for three days cannot be revived using current methods. That's a substantial difference in language.

You're splitting hairs. There is no scientific medical evidence that a man killed by crucifixion can then raise from the dead in 3 days, and walk around preaching and teaching with no limps or pains or anything, and then float up into the heavens. You sure you want to go this route? I'd say a six day creation would be easer to explain away scientifically, then something like that.

Certainly we would call that a medical miracle . . .

You just mooted your point.

Which is why your conflation of the Creation account and the Resurrection is not valid: they are two different things. There is no positive evidence against the idea that Christ rose from the tomb (no body to display, no admission from the apostles, etc.). However, there is a great deal of positive evidence against your reading of the Creation account. The two are dissimilar in that one has been scientifically falsified and the other, despite your assertion to the contrary, has not.

Feel free to support this. There are many that disagree with you on both points.

[wattsr1]

I'm not sure I know of an explicit statement, but it's certainly implicit and there's really no debate among theologians about it. Every single miracle recored in the Bible is never a random event. There's always a purpose surrounding it. Also, if miracles were normal, they would have no effect. What good would it do to raise Christ from the dead after 3 days if this sort of thing happened all the time? This is why miracle are often referred to as signs and wonders. What would be wonderful about an event that happens all the time. It's pretty straightforward.

So how do you know that miracles are very rare events?

I can switch on the TV each morning and see a lot of them. I remember as a youth reading many books where all sorts of modern day miracles were being claimed. I remember listening to lots of visitors to our church making the claim.

Given that this topic is largely natural v supernatural, then clearly, the origin of whales, birds, mammals, stars, planets, wind, rain, and snow - cannot be miraculous, given that we have evidence for the natural origin of these things, and we can explain said origins reasonably well. This is notwithstanding what the Bible says and your presumed acceptance of Flew's definition.


Regards, Roland

[seanD]

Exactly and there are other "quote" christians that ridicule those that take literally the Resurrection account. Bishop Spong and others like him take it as allegory, and their primary reason for doing so is the fact that we now life in an age of scientific enlightenment.

Pro-evo Christianity and liberal Christianity walk hand and hand, because the lines are ever so blurred with the two. Whatever rationale works for Christians like Ox, more power to him I guess.

[oxmixmudd]

Exactly and there are other "quote" christians that ridicule those that take literally the Resurrection account. Bishop Spong and others like him take it as allegory, and their primary reason for doing so is the fact that we now life in an age of scientific enlightenment.

Perhaps so. But the reason I believe Genesis is not to be interpreted as you do is not 'that we live in an age of scientific enlightenment'. What Spong ends up meaning there is that science has shown miracles impossible, that a God of miracles is out of the question.

That is not what motivates me. Nor is it what I believe

I believe in miracles. I believe God can and does work miracles.

It is not what I think God can do, it is what the creation tells us He did do. The empty tomb (creation) tells us Christ is not there. The CMB (creation) tells is 'let there be light' happened 13.7 billion years ago. The Bible tells is '1000 years is like a day' for God, in a Psalm talking about creation, and the text of Genesis is clearly ambiguous about the structure of the cosmos. All these things together say: "God means something different here than a superficial reading will reveal".


Jim

[Calminian]

So we can safely argue that things like the origin of birds, whales, mammals etc are not miracles, given that:-

1) We have evidence that these happened in nature and

2) We have a reasonable idea as to how they happened?

Ditto for the origin of stars and planets.

Ditto for the origin of wind, rain, frost and snow, notwithstanding what the Bible has to say regarding the origin of these?

Again, you're coming at it from the perspective of uniformitarianism—the present is the key to the past. But we have not witnessed these creatures coming into being, nor have we witnessed life evolving from non-life in nature. You can argue that we have seen species change in the present, but this still doesn't tell us about the past or their starting point. Even if I granted that evolution is happening in the present, this still doesn't tell us everything evolved from non-life elements, graduating to single cell and then multi cell animals. God could have created the first kinds with the ability to evolve. The starting point could have been multiple fully developed kinds of animals and plants, etc.

This is again where philosophical thinking must precede scientific thinking. Science cannot verify any of the above scenarios. It certainly can't verify nor falsify miracles.

[oxmixmudd]

I would be very interested in getting a census poll from atheists confirming that claim sometime in the future. I wouldn't want to do it now, because of obvious bias.

Or you could address, discuss, or otherwise consider the points made in my post.

Jim

[seanD]

Right, because I'm responsible for your imprecision. I brought up the topic about death, "corpses" and resurrection because you were conflating two things (The Resurrection and the Creation Account) that were dissimilar. The Creation account that you interpret from the text has strong positive evidence counter to it. The Resurrection does not. You cannot, therefore, use the latter as an argument for the former.

It's a rational approach, not a rationalization. I wonder if you even read my entire post . . .

—Sam

It's the exact same thing. It's the same culture. The same writers who used the same methods, the same type of allegory and symbology. Genesis is myth as you claim. They both are extraordinary accounts that defy science. How are they dissimilar? The NT writers used portions of this myth, as you call it, and incorporated into their own writings, in many cases used it to explain the theory of soteriology. Since God doesn't inspire myth, he obviously didn't think it necessary to inspire Gensis, so why would he inspire the incredible accounts of Christ?

[Ansgar Seraph]

You're splitting hairs. There is no scientific medical evidence that a man killed by crucifixion can then raise from the dead in 3 days, and walk around preaching and teaching with no limps or pains or anything, and then float up into the heavens. You sure you want to go this route? I'd say a six day creation would be easer to explain away scientifically, then something like that.

No, it's not splitting hairs. It is a demonstration of a limitation of science to "declare" anything as conclusively as seanD said it was doing. Even given such tortuous circumstances, "Science" does not "declare that a three day dead corpse cannot come back to life". All the qualifications you listed are rational reasons why it is extremely unlikely that Christ would have returned through natural means but "Science" does not declare that it cannot happen.

You just mooted your point.

Oh, look. Calminian's resorting to chopping out the text that qualifies a statement to make it seem weaker. That's not like him

Certainly we would call that a medical miracle . . . but was it a supernatural one-off miracle or was it an as-of-yet-understood nuance of our biological makeup?

"Medical miracle" ≠ supernatural intervention.

Feel free to support this. There are many that disagree with you on both points.

Well, you can cite the positive evidence against the Resurrection, if you like. As for YEC interpretation of the Creation account, let's start with radiometric dating techniques. Would you like to discuss this within the limitations of scientific inquiry or will you simply argue that, because miracles can occur, our interpretation of historical events is necessarily unreliable?

—Sam

[Calminian]

... The Bible tells is '1000 years is like a day' for God, ...

Yes, but this says nothing about how we should view or experience a day. The jewish work week was not 6000 years of labor and 1000 of rest. The fact that 1000 years goes by for God like a day goes by for us, does not mean that you can simply say a day = 1000 years whenever it's convenient. Its' a silly argument. If God wanted to convey the Genesis days as morning evening cycles, He couldn't have been more explicit.

I suppose Bishop Spong could come back at you and say Christ was in the grave 3000 years. Ouch! Now what do you say?

[oxmixmudd]

Pro-evo Christianity and liberal Christianity walk hand and hand, because the lines are ever so blurred with the two. Whatever rationale works for Christians like Ox, more power to him I guess.

Well they don't really. There are many of us here that are clear examples of the fact that simply is not the case ... unless of course you define 'liberal Christian' solely on what we believe about the age of the Earth.

Take the time to think about what you are reading from us Sean. We uphold every core doctrine of the faith. We are Christians in every sense of the word. And our reasons for our take on Genesis are rational and based on correct theology. Take the time to listen instead of just assuming we are wrong by definition.


Jim