Christ making statements about Creation

The logic that Jesus would refer to fictional characters in Genesis to support His teaching seems not strong in the following case:"I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city" (Luke 10:12)Jesus is saying that in some last judgment it would be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom than for those of cities which turned away Christ and His apostles. This does not argue that a comparison would be made between actual people and fictional people in God's final judgment."And you Copernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt. 11:23)This argues for the evidence that the Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom was regarded as history to Jesus."Truly I say to you, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)He could not mean that it would be relatively more tolerable for fictional people at the last judgment than for real people.Jesus also said that the Devil was a murderer from the beginning. It is logical that "the beginning" refers to something written in Genesis. The murder of Abel at the hands of Cain would be the best candidate for a murder in the beginning.And that would indicate that Jesus took Genesis chapter 4 as history. Jesus also says "And Scripture cannot be broken." He must have believed the Old Testament Scriptures including Genesis.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Once again, in terms of the attitude of Jesus, He seems to have regarded it as history.Here is another reason why Christ regarded Genesis 4 as history. In His long rebuke of the opposing Pharisees and scribes He concludes: It is unlikely that Christ would hold them responsible for the blood shed of a fictional person by another fictional person. The crimes of persecution from Abel's murder to Zachariah's murder, must be counted by Jesus as history.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The attitude of Jesus towards the Old Testament is what convinced me that I should read and believe the Old Testament. I reasoned that if it was OK for Jesus Christ it must be OK.Less attractive to me is the implication that Jesus Christ was deceived, or mistaken about the facts (being Son of God).But this thought came to me by gradual process and I can understand that others may not be at the juncture. But, Jesus seems to anticipate that His usage of references to historical Genesis to warn of the last days, is likely to be dismissed.So to assure that His discussion is to be taken seriously, He adds:"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Luke 21:33)In parallel passages to Luke 21 He refered to Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction - (Luke 17:27-30)As to the question of can a person be Christian who is an evolutionist or theistic evolutionist ? Of course they can. The only requirement to receive eternal redemption is to believe into Christ.The classic hymn "Just As I Am" captures this truth well in the line:"Just as I am, though tossed about,
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings within and fears without,
Oh Lamb of God, I come, I come." (I think I have it right).Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Let me comment on this. Personally, I don't recall anyone saying that for salvation's sake one had to have a particular view of Genesis. It may have happened. I have had some debates about Genesis. But I don't think I recall someone saying that one was not saved if one held a certain view of Genesis.Maybe your experience is different.Secondly, we should want to not only be saved, but also come into the full knowledge of the truth. This is according to God's desire."This is good and acceptable in the sight of our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Tim. 2:3,4)I think eventually, after being saved in the sense of eternal redemption and the gift of eternal life, to continue on in God's economy we would want to come into the full knowledge of the truth.To that end I would pray for myself and for others. That would include an adaquate and living understanding of Genesis that constitutes healthy teaching.But I do agree that a view of Genesis should not become a modern "circumcisism" issue in terms of initial salvation.

The C.S. Lewis I have read had a wry and cool attitude about some implications of Evolution. I recall him saying that people mostly believe in it because of metaphysical reasons.I recall him saying in essence that it was a philosophy in which "goodness is what comes next."Your quotation is interesting. I would however, like to read it in its full context. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Granny I would like to break this criticism down to one chapter.In my English version of the Bible there are 31 numbered verses in Genesis chapter one.Could you tell me what undisputed and universally known scientific fact makes which one of those 31 verses or group of verses a untrue fantasy ?Perhaps you could list the known fact and the specific verse or verses from the 31, which are rendered totally untrue and historically incorrect fantasy because of this known science fact. And I would emphasize that this should be a nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Granny,You said a textural examination renders the realization that the Bible contains mostly fantasy. Now without looking up your post, I think that was the jist of it.Also by way of recall and not re-reading, I got the strong impression that modern science aids in this realization of the fantasy peddling of the Bible.I need to see your FACT and then the verse that it exposes as fantasy.Do you know scientifically that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ?Do you know that the earth did not become waste and empty? Or that it was not in that condition as a pre-condition to light and dry ground appearing?Do you know scientifically that there was not evening and morning and one day, evening and morning and a second day in which some major developments were accomplished ?Where is your generally recognized science fact and where in the 31 verses is the fantasy that it exposes ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's close enough. The generally agreed upon concept of a rather several billion year old planet.Where in the 31 verses is the statement that the earth has not been around for 4.5 billion years ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What I read in my English translation of Genesis about the Fifth it reads as follows: You inform me: Is it possible that some birds could exist before 150 mya which for some reason did not appear in the fossil record ? I don't think when the we see birds in the fossil record necessarily proves a fact that no birds could have existed before then. Maybe they did not appear in the fossil record.So I am hesitant to receive this as a known science FACT which contradicts Genesis 1:20-23.I may admit it as possible evidence suggesting that birds may have developed after land animals. But I think sometimes they turn up fossils of animals which cause revisions of speculations about dates of the first their existence. Listen to what you wrote - "the fact remains that the evidence places birds well after the first land animals".That is a fact about the available evidence. That is not a known fact about when birds actually appeared on the earth. Can you see the difference?No one was actually there. So we don't know when the birds appeared. We can make statments about the factual state of the present evidence only.I think you are still dealing with a theory that has not been proved, ie. birds came into existence only after non-bird land animals did.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In what you have just discribed to me specify the known FACT.I don't mean the best speculation. I mean the known fact.

No I was not there either. But I freely admit that I don't know.
I don't know. I don't claim to know.I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation.Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence.Neither of us may ever know for sure.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have no objection to that. I really like science. I also like the word of God (I take the Bible as God's word). I don't know the exhaustive details of how life arose upon this earth. I have an understanding that God is ultimately reponsible. And the Bible tells me that it is by faith that I know this."By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear" (Hebrews 11:3)The information provided me that instills faith is economical and apparently limited.And I think that it is layed out for us in a sequence to mostly emphasize the uniqueness of man in this creation. The animals are traced as to their arrival not in an exhaustive way. But the review seems to me to highlight two matters,IMO, levels of consciousness and the development of the face.I mean this, the grass has a low level of consciousness as compared to man. The fish are mentioned on the fifth day. These creatures have a higher level of consciousness than the grass. We are ascending up the scale in level of consciousness.We are told next of the fowl life on the fifth day. I think the point is the point is in consciousness we are ascending higher. The birds being able to transcend the salty water may be a point. They can freely soar above the environment of the salty sea. And their consciousness is higher than both the plant life and the fish life.Then on the sixth day we are told of the higher lives which not only transcend but can accomplish something on the earth. The lion is used elsewhere in Scripture to represent Judah, a tribe that can accomplish many significant things. First Samuel 6:7,21a tells abnout two kine whch were used to carry the cart with the ark.Both the beasts and the cattle of the sixth day can accomplish something on this earth. Their consciousness is higher than the fish, even higher than the bird, and they can do something on this earth.I am using the Bible to interpret the Bible. I believe that Holy Spirit is laying out the sequence of living creatures to portray the ascendency of consciousness, responsiblity, and expression, We are approaching the highest life, human beings. We are doing so in such a way so that man can look down from the peak of this pennacle and have a certain self consciousness about himself. He is among the other created lives yet he also stands apart from them in a unique way. This would be an over simplification. Over a period of time after I had met Jesus Christ, a kind of approvedness and trustworthiness was built up in my mind concerning the integrity of Jesus. It was eventual that I decided that what He took seriously in the rest of the Bible I should likewise take seriously.Now, I also have respect for other people, including scientists. But the approvedness of Jesus for me is more impressive. I am at the point where I think His integrity is beyond questioning.This decision came gradually. I did not start reading Genesis when I became a Christian. I started with the Gospels and gradually opened up my mind to the rest of the Bible when I observed Christ's attitude towards the rest of Scripture. I will be 60 years old in another month. I have raised two children who are now in thier lower thirties. Both are college degreed. I am not ignoring the facts that present day biological theory is that birds are the descendents of dinosaurs.As a family we subscribed to Discovery Magazine. And contrary to what you think I am really quite fascinated with scientific advancement, I especially keep reasonably abreast of cosmology from a layman's perspective.1.) I just don't know if I can say a known fact proves anything in Genesis not true. I ahve to ask myself certain questions about the text. I ask about what it says in the original language. I ask about what it does not say.I consider the purpose behind what is being conveyed. The immediate issue that Granny raises is that birds were alive only after land walking animals. So because we KNOW this the fifth day review of God creating birds preceeding the land creatures on the sixth day must therefore be an error.I am not sure that the intent of the writing can be merit that criticism.2.) I am not sure that the seer or prophet is relating to things to us as he saw them. In which case the visions were economical and many details were not made known to him.For sequence of visions of the creatures and their days may not have the purpose of revealing their chronological appearance on the earth. Rather the sequence may emphasize their ascending consciousness as they approach the main subject of the creation story, the creation of man in God's image.At this time I do not have the confidence to insist that birds being reviewed on day five preceeding cattle being reviewed on day sixth represents a scientific error.I further don't know that we have more than a educated guess that birds could only exist after land dwelling life forms could. I am Okay with acknowledging that the present consenus interpretation of fossils leads to that belief.I don't know that that fossil record interpretation renders Genesus 1:20-25 wrong. You say I am out of place. But this is the Bible Study forum. So maybe Granny is out of place.The underlying question here is "What Does the Bible Really Mean?"I think I am persuing that question. I do not think I have all the answers. But it is a legitimate questions - Does Genesis intend to present a exhaustive scientific discreption of God created everything ?At present I don't think Genesis is to be taken as an exhaustive scientific discriptyion of how God created everything. The first things seen are in a state of ruin and void, suggesting that something was there in a chaotic state. Either entropy or catastraphy is implied which would also imply the passage of more time prior to the six days of review there with their focus on Man's world.At least some quarters of science today envision something like killer comets, killer gas, killer asteriods, massive volcanic desterbance wreaking havoc on some previous earth epoch. This really seems skating closer to Genesis 1:1,2 in a number of English translations:"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" (RcV, Gen 1:1,1)I see conceivable room there for epochs of time preceeding Adam's world.Now concerning the Evolution matter. Let me say one thing before I close.The word had no problem in telling us that Eve was taken out of Adam as a rib and built into a female human being. If Adam had come out of a primate, for example, an ape of some kind ( the artist usually draw something that at least looks to me like an ape ), I don't see why the revelator would not have written that God took a man out of a ape and called his name Adam.As it stands Adam the first man came out of the dust. So I have a question mark on this matter of an ape one day or gradually over many millions of days producing a human being.It very well could have said "And God took the creature out of the ape and formed him into a man". It didn't. So I remain suspicious about the ape ancestor theory.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I wrote above: I mean in addition to levels of consciousness being traversed in this journey up from grass to man, we also see a development of the neck and face.The grass, the lowest life mentioned, has no face. The fish of the sea have their neck and face practically the same. But at least they have something like a face which is higher than the plant life in expression. Then we come to the birds who have something of a neck. We are ascending up in levels of facial appearance coming to the man the climax.The cattle and land beasts mentioned after plants, fish, and birds have the head and face more developed. The head appears distinct from the neck now.Last of all we come to human beings who have a fully developed and expressive face which comumicates thousands of minute indicatiosn of changes in mood and in thought - intention. I think this, moreso than the cow or lion.Man made in the image of God is the maturity of created life in Genesis. The ascending record of life's creation reflects this. All the other creatures are created after thier kind. Then at the climax we see man created in the image of God. Man is created to express God and represent God.I think the what should be paid attention to is this matter. This is more important to me then whether birds lived before or after water oxen and lions. If these visions were revealed to the seer or prophet in seven sequences as days, I think the intend is to impress upon the seer the ascendency of consciousness of life and sophistication of expression as seen in the development of the neck, head, and face of the creatures.We have to admit that man looks down now from the top of this pyramid of lives and realizes about himself that there is NOTHING else on the earth living quite like himself.I presently think that the Darwinists look at this ladder of ascendency and see TIME must have worked. I see rather the divine Mind at work to give man a self consciousness about himself. He is of the other creatures yet he is totally unique. He can neither be TOO proud nor take himself too much for granted.He is one of the creatures yet he stands out as closest to God the Creator and Himself the uncreated eternal life.This is forum about what the Bible really means.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.