The Danger of Preaching on Genesis

Thinking Creationist - #19558

June 30^th 2010

I agree with a lot of what Joel is saying here… but ultimately, he concludes rather arrogantly, that the only reason someone would be a literalist is because they haven’t felt free to use there intellectual capacity. Joel, isn’t it possible for someone to be quite intelligent, feel no threat to other aspects of their faith, examine the origin issue, and come down on the side of literalism? Your interview suggest that this is not possible. That is the arrogant, narrow minded groupthink that is coming out of the evangelical intellectual community today.
Justin Poe - #19571

June 30^th 2010

Comment removed by moderator.
beaglelady - #19594

June 30^th 2010

That’s an intriguing name for a church ( Northland, A Church Distributed). Can you tell us more about it please?
DWDMD - #19627

June 30^th 2010

Thinking Creationist,
I see that his statement could give you that impression, but I have been in church environments where thinking and questioning were discouraged and the person who did so was made to feel like a heretic. It is those situations I think he is addressing; but I agree, we can’t make a blanket assumption that those who disagree with us are less intellectual and well-read.
In your evaluation of the evidence for the age and method of the earth’s creation, did you come to your conclusions completely on extrabiblical evidence - just from a study of nature? It seems to me that you cannot use the very thing that in in contention - how to interpret creation-related passages in the Bible - as part of your evidence.

Diane
HornSpiel - #19703

July 1^st 2010

To me the issue in the church is a stronger-brother-weaker-brother one. Those who take a more intellectual approach need to be careful that their freedom does not make other sincere believers stumble.
nedbrek - #19724

July 1^st 2010

DWDMD - the issue is one of authority. Do you use the Bible to judge everything (including itself)? Or do you place yourself (and your understanding of nature) above the Bible?
Gabriel Powell - #19893

July 1^st 2010

I’d be curious to see BioLogos post sermons on Genesis1-3 by non-creationists. I am really curious to hear non-creationists preach the text. I’m not being facetious at all, I really would like to know.
philoctetes - #20008

July 2^nd 2010

Is it genetic? I mean the propensity of priests to be patronising and arrogant in the absence in their arguments of any evidence? Will priests always ignore facts in the pursuit of power, influence and prestige? A Church Distributed? More a Church Disingenuous. Perhaps a Church Disastrous. Certainly not a Church Disinterested. It is “Distributed” in the sense its arguments are all over the place.
Here is an argument saying that there are some ludicrous stories attributed to Yahweh but we have to advise half-wits to believe them so that the same half-wits will believe in the ludicrous stories attributed to Jesus. Creation is as fantastic an idea as resurrectionism. For a site that is supposedly about reconciling aspects of faith and science; I can see where the belief is, but where is the science?
Ugo Cei - #20011

July 2^nd 2010

@Thinking Creationsit: “isn’t it possible for someone to be quite intelligent, feel no threat to other aspects of their faith, examine the origin issue, and come down on the side of literalism?”

I was tempted to answer “no”. It would be tempting to dismiss all literalists as stupid, but there are actually many literalists and YECs who are not stupid. They just decided to give up using their intelligence when pondering the question, so they invariably come out with a stupid answer.
Ray - #20016

July 2^nd 2010

@gabriel

Genesis 1 should be viewed as a commentary on the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The stories are similar enough to be clearly related. They differ not in what was created and when but in who did the creating and why, so it seems most likely that Genesis I is trying to make a point about the latter. Reading either as literally true is problematic not only because the time-line contradicts scientific consensus, but also because they both clearly imply that the sky is a solid object above which sits a freshwater ocean—I trust no one believes *that.*

Genesis 2-3 is a bit more open to interpretation—it has clear literary affinities to the older “epic of Gilgamesh” and “Adapa and the South Wind” as will as the contemporaneous Greek Prometheus/Pandora Cycle. I think it’s safe to say that all four comment on the human condition: We differ from the animals in that we strive to better ourselves, and in that we know we’re going to die. Paradoxically, our great advantage over the animals, our wisdom, only makes it clearer how far we fall short of divinity. It is in the emphasis and attitude towards this paradox that the four accounts differ.

I hope this helps
Robert Andrescik - #20065

July 2^nd 2010

Hi, beaglelady ... we are called “a church distributed” because we believe the church isn’t a building, it’s people! We ARE the church, and God has distributed us everywhere, every day to do His work. To accomodate ministry outside the walls of the church, we built our new worship facility to be more of a communications center than a church. In fact, the fastest-growing segment of our congregation of 12,000 has never set foot inside our building—2,000 people worship online with us each weekend. Our goal is to help our online worshipers to connect in community in “simple churches” or house churches for worship and to be equipped for service. I hope that answers your question, at least in part. Best and God bless, Robert Andrescik, Director of Public Relations, Northland, A Church Distributed
philoctetes - #20077

July 2^nd 2010

Comment removed by moderator.
Gabriel Powell - #20103

July 2^nd 2010

Ray,

Actually, that doesn’t help at all. You didn’t answer the question.
Ray - #20108

July 2^nd 2010

Which question?
James - #20140

July 2^nd 2010

Well, so much for the science in this “science and faith dialogue.” This is nothing more than a call to ignore the age of the earth and the process of evolution. And what’s this business about approaching the bible “humbly” being a mistake? Such argument just aren’t worth being taken seriously.
twom - #20229

July 3^rd 2010

With the overwhelming scientific evidence available showing that Adam and Eve, as portrayed in the Bible, did not exist (which doesn’t bode well for Jesus later on), and that there was never a world-wide flood, or a Tower of Babel, and with the complete lack of evidence for the “Exodus,” and anachronisms indicating that Moses never wrote (was HE even real?) the Pentateuch; how is it that anyone can still believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis/Bible?

And I question the logic behind church leaders actually allowing the dichotomy of this dual belief to exist. Either the Genesis stories are true—or not; it is NOT a matter of personal belief, it is a matter of “is this religion right or wrong in its particulars?” If theist philosophers decide that they will teach the literalness of Genesis, then the scientists in fields that are related to much of the stories are completely wrong in the many many thousands of pieces of confirmed research data that contradict this conclusion.

It’s ultimately going to boil down to…are the sciences right, in which case the religionists will have to realize they have wasted their life and wealth…OR vice-versa.

Science seems to win these little battles by spouting the truth.
Mike - #20236

July 3^rd 2010

I think people generally “jump the gun”.
Before debating scripture, there really needs to be some serious investigation into its provenance.
Who wrote what and when?
What was the general understanding of the physical world at the time of writing?
What was the style of writing at the time?

Without a real basis on which to assess scripture, it just becomes anybodies guess.
Is it possible it was a first attempt at an epic novel? a work of fiction?

What I can never understand is why weren’t the Chinese featured in scripture. They were, after all, far more advanced as a civilisation than the desert nomads of the time.
enlight - #20251

July 3^rd 2010

Hey, I just had a thought…
what if it’s all fiction, made up by men? ... and the best to that this site comes up with is ‘no we must not let anyone believe that!’
Seriously?
Charlie - #20302

July 3^rd 2010

This issue is not one of what view you may or may not hold. The only concern for anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is, ‘What does Scripture say?’ A literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture is the only way to come to the conclusion as to what a passage is saying. As such, Genesis 1-3 is to be understood literally and only through its historical and grammatical interpretation will we know what God has revealed there. It is beyond question that the text there teaches that God created the entire universe, down to the very atom, in six, twenty-four hour days and that there was a final twenty-four hour day in which God ceased from His work. The grammar is very clear. The references from New Testament writers of Adam, Eve, creation, are also with the understanding of a literal six-day creation. Other Old Testament writers also believe in a six day creation as seen in later teachings of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets. Since the Bible is the only inspired document in existence, science, and all its modern scientific community, will have to submit to its authority in all its findings. Scripture and true science are wonderfully compatible.
Ronnie - #20365

July 3^rd 2010

Well said Charlie.

The true intent of those who espouse and promote evolution is to attempt to discredit Genesis as a literal account of history and the creation of all things. Any effort to put doubt into peoples mind that maybe God didn’t exactly mean what He said in the book of Genesis is leading people astray plain and simple, and God has stern warnings for those that add to, take away from, or alter His Word.

The “real” danger is NOT teaching a literal account of Genesis
twom - #20372

July 3^rd 2010

Hi Charlie, thank you for replying to my reply.

You see the problem is that Genesis is the one chapter in the bible that is easiest to prove wrong and not literal. No matter what you may feel about it…it is provably NOT true.

It would undoubtedly be great if science and scripture agreed 100% with each other, but we know they don’t in some/most matters, such as most of Genesis. All the physical evidence (and there is a LOT of it) points to man being on earth, and ALL over the earth, for hundreds of thousands of years.

That evidence doesn’t go away because it doesn’t jibe with your literal interpretation of a patriarchal goat herder’s literary musings. It is what it is…physical proofs that disagree with biblical myths. You can argue about old literary forms and ways of interpretation until we’re both blue in the face, but the real physical evidence stands.

The bible cannot be proven to be true; therefore it holds no authority over mankind.
Tim - #20476

July 4^th 2010

twom

‘You see the problem is that Genesis is the one chapter in the bible that is easiest to prove wrong and not literal’

Really? What about Jesus turning water into wine? Surely this is even more demonstrably impossible? After all, we all know the chemical composition of water and it is quite different to wine -even the wine I buy (unfortunately). As yet we have not managed to put plain water into a glass jar, excite it with some electrical discharges or whatever, and magic up a drop of wine. We can do this test every day and end up just as disappointed as the previous day, so Jesus couldn’t have done it. Easy proof.

Whereas to prove that some all-powerful and all-able Being did not make a sun 6000 years ago is rather tricky. I guess you weren’t around then? So maybe you have some presuppositions about the way the world works. I do share your cynicism about the ability of a stone-age farmer to accurately describe the physical origins of the universe. Absolutely.

But if this farmer heard from God something that was true, and he wrote it down in terminology that communicates that truth, then I might be wise to listen to him. His terms might not square up to modern physics, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Mike McCants - #20497

July 5^th 2010

“Whereas to prove that some all-powerful and all-able Being did not make a sun 6000 years ago is rather tricky.”

Of course no scientist attempts to do that.. But they do point out that there is a lot of scientific evidence that the universe is old and that evolution is true. So how can you reconcile your mythology against accepted science? Did your “trickster” creator create everything just as though the universe is 13.7 billion years old and just as though evolution is true? Why did he do that? This seems quite irrational to me.
Tim - #20537

July 5^th 2010

Mike McCants - I’m sorry I wasn’t very clear. I didn’t mean to imply that I’m convinced the sun was made 6000 years ago. What I meant was that it isn’t necessarily the easiest bit of the bible to ‘prove’ wrong (because creation isn’t open to repeatable experiments in the same sense that, for example, turning water into wine might be).

In other words, there are stacks of miracles and supernatural events in the bible that can be ‘proved’ not to happen, using a scientific method that assumes we must always be able to reproduce results in our own laboratory.

But that doesn’t mean they lack truth. I’m hot today. I’d even say I’m boiling. Clearly this is utter garbage and your physics would be able to prove it false, but it is also true. I really am boiling.

I’m really sorry if this still isn’t clear. Perhaps I should avoid writing on blogs like this.
dave - #20550

July 5^th 2010

Pastor Hunter seems to be saying that it’s OK if you figure out Genesis isn’t literal, but don’t tell anyone else because it might make their brains hurt. How patronizing.
colluvial - #20591

July 5^th 2010

Tim - #20476: “But if this farmer heard from God something that was true, and he wrote it down in terminology that communicates that truth, then I might be wise to listen to him. His terms might not square up to modern physics, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”

This gets right to the hear of the problem, doesn’t it? How are you to know what is true, what is allegorical, or what is simply Bronze Age story telling? If it doesn’t agree with what you know to be true about the world (things like day and night being created before the sun, whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, etc.) then it seems that the bible would have to be something other than a literal document.
colluvial - #20593

July 5^th 2010

Tim - #20537: “In other words, there are stacks of miracles and supernatural events in the bible that can be ‘proved’ not to happen, using a scientific method that assumes we must always be able to reproduce results in our own laboratory. But that doesn’t mean they lack truth. I’m hot today. I’d even say I’m boiling. Clearly this is utter garbage and your physics would be able to prove it false, but it is also true. I really am boiling.”

It’s useful to be able to distinguish between a factual statement and metaphor. You can do this yourself, with no laboratory equipment but a fever thermometer. All else is exaggeration that might communicate your emotional state, but it does nothing to help us understand the world around us.
twom - #20616

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim, thanks for your reply.

You write in reply to my saying Genesis is untrue:
“Really? What about Jesus turning water into wine? Surely this is even more demonstrably impossible? After all, we all know the chemical composition of water and it is quite different to wine -even the wine I buy (unfortunately).”

There are no written records outside the New Testament that this happened. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote well after the events of Jesus turning water to wine, healing the sick, raising the dead, multiplying the fish and loafs, etc. and that’s all we have. There were no people of the actual time of Jesus writing anything down about him. Also, it seems there is some question of who actually wrote the Gospels, so it’s kind of hard to prove or disprove anything there.

The book of Genesis is another matter though. It states some things that are easily checked by written records of the time, and geological and archaeological records of other times. We do know for a fact that the earth is several billions of years old…there are no scientific quibbles about this anymore; a hundred years from now science will be quoting the same age…that seems to be settled.

continued…..
Tim - #20691

July 6^th 2010

colluvial - #20591

Yes it is difficult to be sure what is literal, what is intended as literal even. Though for the most part I think it is fairly clear.

The inconsistencies and errors in words of the bible are reflected in the characters of the bible too. So, for example, David (let’s assume it was him for now) has written some great Psalms about his worship of God. Yet he was a murderer and an adulterer. But this fact doesn’t necessarily inhibit me from taking some of David’s words as being spiritually meaningful and useful in appreciating God.

The fact that some chappy thought that rabbits chew the cud (I didn’t know that the don’t actually, I’d never thought about it) doesn’t make me abandon the idea that he might have something good to say about God. I’m surrounded by people who make errors and indeed I am one myself. I think that if there is a God (with all that might imply about ability to communicate), that he loves us, has chosen to make himself known to me, and who is appreciated via faith, then he can certainly handle the crap in the world.
Tim - #20693

July 6^th 2010

colluvial - #20593

Yes. It was just an illustration of how statements can be judged to be both false and true that’s all. I fear there may be a bigger chasm between us than a blog can bridge. Thanks for responding.
Tim - #20696

July 6^th 2010

twom - #20616

Thanks for your response.

‘There are no written records outside the New Testament that this happened.’ Of course, when they were written, Matt, Mark, Luke and John were actually outside the New Testament because it didn’t exist. These reports claim to come from first-hand sources, albeit verbal and not written until some time later. Would you prefer a newspaper report of the time, or some other third-hand report? Would you rather believe that? I’d rather read a witness statement than a reporter’s summary of it any day.

‘There were no people of the actual time of Jesus writing anything down about him. Also, it seems there is some question of who actually wrote the Gospels, so it’s kind of hard to prove or disprove anything there.’ I’m sorry my friend but I simply don’t agree with this dismissal. There are many books around that attest to the quality of evidence that we need not rehearse here.

‘The book of Genesis is another matter though. It states some things that are easily checked by written records of the time,’ I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying here or the rest of the paragraph.
twom - #20713

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim, thanks for writing.
Continued from yesterday:

The matter of the age of humans has been settled also. There is no doubt anymore that modern type humans (Homo-sapiens) were roaming the earth over 150,000 and probably as much as 200,000 years ago. There was also our cousins the Neanderthals (Homo-neanderthals) roaming from about 300,000 years ago to about 30,000 years ago. Bones of both Homo-sapiens and Homo-neanderthals dating from 50,000 years ago have been found together in a cave on Mt. Carmel in Israel. There are over 6,000 complete skeletons of ancient but modern type humans in museums and research facilities around the world. DNA is backing up the dates that were arrived at by as much as 40 different methods of dating. These things are not in question by scientists anymore.

Another thing to consider is that human remains have been found all over the world (not just Africa where our ancestors came from), and many have dates that go back 20,30,40,50,000 years or more. We know for a fact that the Americas…North, Central, and South have been populated for a minimum of 13,000 years and possibly as much as 24,000 years.

Continued…..
twom - #20716

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim,

To clarify….Genesis has many elements to it that happened in historical times, or times when we had writing and kept records. The rest of my segmented reply has to be downloaded to reply panel and perhaps it will make more sense then.
twom - #20717

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim,
Continued….

Another thing we know for a fact is that the whole earth was never completely under water at any time within the last 500 million years. Many ancient peoples have flood stories, but most ancient peoples lived near water sources such as rivers, lakes, and oceans and ALL of them flood from time to time. We know that ocean levels have varied as much as 200 feet, or more, in the last 10,000 years due to ice ages. We know that the Mediterranean Sea basin was empty a few million years ago and at some point within the last ½ million years it filled up…fast. An amazing amount of facts are known about our ancient earth, and we didn’t even have to be there.

That’s the good thing about science that the ancient Bible writers couldn’t have prophesied. We now know they are just stories, but peopled believed in magic back then and the writers could get away with a lot of nonsense.

Anyway, from the facts just listed above we can postulate many things, and can prove by circumstantial evidence that some things DIDN’T happen…that the Bible says did.
twom - #20719

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim,
Continued:

There was no Tower of Babel as described in the Bible. Around the timeline derived from the Bible (about 4000 years ago) humans had populated the whole earth and had been in all countries for thousands of years. They were not speaking the same language…this can be proved circumstantially.

We know from DNA analysis that all humans alive today can trace their roots back to Africa and there was never a time when the only humans alive were in the Middle East (Babylon area) and DNA also tells us that we are not descended from just two first parents. There is even some Neanderthal blood in some European and Asian people alive today. None of this is in dispute in the relevant scientific communities.

Despite over a hundred years of hard searching in the Sinai desert by many, many teams of archaeologists from all over the world (including Israeli’s who have a vested interest), there has been no corroborating evidence found for a million or more Hebrews fleeing from the Pharaoh. There have not been found any chariot wheels in the Red Sea or the Reed Sea…..

Continued…..
twom - #20720

July 6^th 2010

Hi Tim,
Continued:

Archaeologists have been saying for 50 years or so that there is no proof that Joshua obliterated Jericho or Ai or several other of the supposed doomed cities. The walls were already down or destroyed hundreds or a thousand years before the alleged time of Joshua.

All of these facts and the resultant happenings come together in some hard evidence that the Bibles foundations are full of lies or myths or campfire stories written by goat-herders in an attempt to consolidate the tribes around a foundational myth. This is their story, but as in all the ancient civilizations founding myths…it is mythical.

The New Testament is another story altogether. Paul founded Christianity without ever meeting the Christ, who just happened to be teaching Jewish theology for a Jewish audience. Nothing like what we see nowadays.

twom
Tim - #20789

July 7^th 2010

twom

I’m not sure we’re hearing each other here.

I’m a little concerned that you are conflating a lack of evidence for something happening (in the place where you are able to look) with a proof that it did not. (For example : ‘There have not been found any chariot wheels’.) And you are adding to this by voicing some broadly plausible scenarios as though they are factual (For example : ‘in an attempt to consolidate the tribes around a foundational myth’). I’m not saying that everything you are saying is wrong, but I think you have built bridges from your chosen evidence to your chosen standpoint.

But thanks for your input.
Ronnie - #20807

July 7^th 2010

Mike McCants - #20497:

Regarding the “apparent age” of the universe, how can we look at the sun and say its 5 billion (or however many billion) years old? Who says it “looks” old? What do we compare it to? What does a ‘young’ sun look like?

How can we look at a mountain range and say its “X” number of millions of years old? How can we know? What does an “old” mountain range look like? What does a young mountain range look like?

Apparent Age is a bias used by evolutionary science to promote their agenda, which is to attempt to disprove Genesis, and is touted as fact when the age of anything which no one actually saw come into existence can be determined. Evolution says it has plenty of evidence to indicate a very old universe. Creation scientists can give evidence to the contrary to indicate a young earth. Neither one can be proven by science as we know it.
Mike Orrison - #20832

July 7^th 2010

The reality is that Scripture was written as a testemony to Christ deity! If our modern or even our postmodern understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not correct, then our understanding must change. However, if they are correct and are consistant with with Christ’s understanding and written testemony of scripture itself, then we are in a dangerous place. For when we contradict our Lord in matteres of fact, then we are now in discord with the Holy Session of heaven and are to be held in contempt of His court. Christ states that the scriptures were written not because we might find eternal life in them; but that they testify of Him! If these first eleven chapters are not acceptable due to our current scientific understanding of the Kosmos, then we should either abandon the science or abandon the scripture. If we are to follow the logic to it’s end and accept the view that they ( the Scriptures in question) are only a moral story or dare I say a myth, is to say that Christ is a liar and a charlatan. Should we also reinterprate the gospel of John which is directly linked to Genesis 1 as figurative? en arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o logos. Like the video, this is one man’s opinion.
Jim Kraft - #20839

July 7^th 2010

Jim Kraft
I am amazed at how many Christian pastors are so quick to gut God of His omnipotence. Power is a derivative of Time. Power = Work / Time. The less Time involved to do something, the greater the Power being manifested. That is why man goes gaa-gaa over 5,000 horsepower dragsters- that can do the quarter mile in only a nano-second or two. God creating instantly, by the spoken word, is meant to blow our socks off. Jesus Christ, identified in John 1 and other texts as the creator, shows the importance of time, by doing virtually all of His miracles instantaneously. The disciples put it rather succinctly when they said “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” Mark 4:41
The historicity of Christ and His miracles is substantiated by 1000s of eye-witnesses.
Mega Time frames of millions/billions of years are very influential in turning obvious fairy tales like Cinderella and the fairy godmother mice-into-stallion story into “scientific” evolution. “Given enough time, anything is possible” Time becomes a god - a god who does not hold us accountable.
Ever notice how man tends toward making God less powerful, via theistic evolution - rather than reducing the time line from 6 days to 6 seconds?
kraml - #21271

July 10^th 2010

“My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.” It’s that simple.
unapologetic catholic - #21358

July 12^th 2010

“Regarding the “apparent age” of the universe, how can we look at the sun and say its 5 billion (or however many billion) years old? Who says it “looks” old? What do we compare it to? What does a ‘young’ sun look like?

How can we look at a mountain range and say its “X” number of millions of years old? How can we know? What does an “old” mountain range look like? What does a young mountain range look like?”

These questions intened to be rhetorical actually have answers. We do know what a young sun looks like—we can look at billions of them, and old suns too. We do know what old mountains (e.g., Appalacians) look like compared to new mountains (Rockies).

And our observations can be backed up by multiple means of mesurements which must be consistnet with each other. The claim that we don’t know what a young sun looks like is a claim of raw ignorance.

Jesus said to them, Is not this the reason for your error, that you have no knowledge of the holy Writings or of the power of God?
Ronnie - #21380

July 12^th 2010

unapologetic catholic:

I was responding to comment by another poster who wrote why would our Creator (“trickster creator” was his words) create the universe to “look as if it were 13.7 billion years old”. My point is that the so-called accepted scientific evidence is biased toward an old earth. There is much evidence that can point to a young earth, but since it doesn’t fit into the evolutionary bias of “accepted science” its not considered.

I know this is Biologos’ view but the problem (‘danger’, according this topic) is that they’re trying to compromise evolution and Genesis. Genesis states clearly a literal 6 day creation of all things, Adam and Eve, the Fall, a worldwide flood, and the Tower of Babel. If Genesis can be made out to be just a story with no historical accuracy or value, then what about the rest of the Bible? This is the “danger” of Biologos’ position.
unapologetic catholic - #21446

July 12^th 2010

“There is much evidence that can point to a young earth”

Such as?

You attempted to illustrate such evidence througth rhetorical questions that you believed had no answer. There are whole coherent scientific disciplines that answer your questions.

There are no coherent scientific disciplines that can produce any evidence of a young earth. Sorry.
Bill R. - #26799

August 24^th 2010

I am convinced that God created the universe and that he inspired the writing of the Bible. Therefore, I am convinced that facts of the universe and the Bible cannot contradict each other. However, our interpretations of the physical world and our understanding or interpretations of the Bible can conflict.

The word translated “create” in Genesis 1 is bara’ and is interesting. God is the only one who is the subject of bara’. Usually in the Old Testament bara’ does not mean the creation of something out of nothing.

As an example:
Isaiah 54:16 (NLT)
16 “I have created the blacksmith
who fans the coals beneath the forge
and makes the weapons of destruction.
And I have created the armies that destroy.
The word bara’ is translated the same way here and in Genesis one. Yet no one would assume that the blacksmith was created from nothing. We think we understand the mechanism God used to make the blacksmith.

I think that Hunter’s point is that we are all members of Christ’s body, and we should treat them that way. We should treat each other with respect and love, as Paul indicates in Galations 3, especially 3:28.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

The Danger of Preaching on Genesis

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment