Feb

In The Beginning

Posted by: Sonny in Belief, Doctrine, Truth

2059137018_925b6b84d5 We were on our way to church last evening and the last few minutes of daylight were passing away. At one point I became entranced by the size of the full moon that was fully visible despite the daylight. This vision got me to thinking about the reality of things and the ways we interpret the bible. Figure that one out. The paths our thoughts sometimes make are amazing.

What I thought about was how most of us interpret the first ten chapters of Genesis. I, like most of you, look at these passages as literal as I can, especially the creation account and the fall. I tend to think of Adam and Eve as real people and of the Fall as a real event. But there are some that do not.

There are theologians that look at these first verses of scripture as allegory, or an attempt to metaphorically represent certain spiritual truths. This view is nothing new as most things theological are not new. There has been a division over this view of interpretation from the beginnings of Judaism. This approach can be consistent with an inerrant view of the bible but not from a fundamentalist style of literalism.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.

If we take the moon itself as the lesser light, and we certainly do not have too, then we can see this as metaphorical and we know it cannot be literal. And there are other arguments that can be raised also.

I am not really concerned with the debate between theologians over this issue. What I am concerned with is the questions that are asked by non-believers over some of these same issues and our inability to give in on some things to reach out to them. There are so many people out there that won’t give Jesus a chance over some of our unbending views of creation, the flood, etc. and etc. Shouldn’t the love of Christ and Him giving Himself for us be the focus and isn’t that enough.

I am not against those ministries that put all their resources into some of these views about the bible but when they think that an argument concerning a young or old earth is going to bring lost souls into the kingdom, I have to wonder about that and them. These types of arguments should, in my opinion, be reserved for those that are mature in Christ, and not the lost.

As far as whether the first chapters of Genesis are literal or allegorical, I will not commit. It seems to me that both have their merit. But I do know that Jesus, who I know is God, primarily used parables to teach His truths.

Love you all

Tags: adam and eve, allegory, Beginning, Bible, Church, Creation, creation account, Ending, full moon, Interpretation, Kingdom, literalism, Love, Sin, Theological

This entry was posted on Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm and is filed under Belief, Doctrine, Truth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

17 comments so far

Shannon Mimbs

Very interesting post, my brother. I think your hunger for practical theology is bleeding through (and rightfully so). I too am interested by many of the studies concerning creation, the flood, the Nephilim, etc. However, as you note, we have have to be careful not to make these the hub of our message. A called-for faithful relationship with God through Jesus Christ (bringing us into the believing community) is the hub of the gospel. Now, as you also mention, there are interesting truths to the above studies that pertain to the revelation of God. Yet, we must be careful not to overemphasize any one subject (such as these) and eclipse the good news of God’s salvation through his Son.

As I suspect is the case with most others, I pledged my life to Christ without an unyielding position concerning creation or many other wonderfully interesting biblical stories, facts, truths, etc. I surrendered my life to God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, in order that I might graciously enter his Kingdom. If we focus on this first, as you contend, then our exploration of other interesting truths is in a relational context. Although I disagree with numerous of Augustine’s theological views, I do appreciate his quote concerning interpretation – we are to have “unity in essentials, freedom in non-essentials, and charity in all things.” It’s a good rule of thumb regarding biblical interpretation.

Peace

February 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Sonny

Thanks and yes, we do need to be united in the essentials.

But, as you know also, there are so many “ministries” out there that focus on many of these non-essentials and portray them as a means to reach the lost. I know some will not agree with the idea of stopping these types of ministries but if they cast a negative light on the real message of Gods love for us, maybe they should be.

Just thinking.

Love you all

February 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Shannon Mimbs

When Dee and I were home Sunday night, I saw on TBN (of all things!) a show called “Spirit Formed” with Jack Hayford. It was the best thing I have ever seen on TBN. A large part of “ministries” on TV are leaning toward these “specialized” areas of study (creation, prophecy, etc). What I heard from Hayford was an emphasis on the hub of the message, a relationship with Jesus Christ (amazingly, he was teaching my Nehemiah… I was very interested, to say the least).

When many folks draw from “specialized” programs as means of discipleship and/or tools to spread the gospel, they adopt and adapt such emphases (maybe unbeknownst to them) as integral to one’s witness. I think this is dangerous and many times ineffective when trying to win people to Christ.

February 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Sonny

I have seen Hayford in the past and I have heard he is one of the more reserved and rational charismatics. It seems I thought this enough to have read at least one of his books although I can’t recall which one.

There are a few decent preachers on TBN. The ones that have programs early in the morning or usually late at night and do not get invited to the praise a thon money raising manna fests are sometimes okay.

February 9th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Justin A

Here are some of the reasons I believe it is important to present evidence for a recent creation about 6,000 years ago. (Actually 6,000 years is not so recent.)

The Bible is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

The comprehensive theory of evolution includes the beginning at the Big Bang up to the present. This supposedly happened over a period of 14 billion years. If this is true then Jesus is wrong. Jesus said God created Adam and Eve in the beginning. If the earth is billions of years old, Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning. They were created billions of years after the beginning. Is the theory of evolution wrong or is Jesus wrong?

Genealogies are easily added up with no room for doubt (see Genesis 5) to about 6,000 years ago for the creation of Adam and Eve. This is in direct conflict with evolution over millions of years.

Human and animal death clearly came about as a result of Adam’s sin according to the Bible. According to the theory of evolution, there were millions of years of fossils before the first man. Evolution says there was death and disease before Adam. The Bible says death and disease came after Adam. These are two incompatible views.

After Adam and Eve were created God declared the creation very good. Millions of years of death, disease and suffering do not sound good to me. Some say that there were millions of years of history before Adam and Eve that include the dinosaurs and fossils but in Exodus it says that God made everything that is in the earth in six days. “Everything” would include the fossils that show death and disease.

The order of creation does not match the theory of evolution. For example, the Bible says the earth came before the sun. The Big Bang says the sun came before the earth. These two views are incompatible. The Bible is wrong or the theory of evolution is wrong.

Some say that the “days” in Genesis were actually long periods of time with natural processes occurring. The grass and fruit trees were created on day 3 and the sun was created on day 4. If only natural processes were occurring the fruit trees wouldn’t make if millions of years without the sun. Evolution, of course, teaches that the sun came before fruit trees. These two views are incompatible.

Even if you believe that Genesis is allegorical do you believe God is too dumb to get the order of creation correct? Even in an allegory the basic facts should not be turned on their head.

If Genesis is allegorical, then the sin of Adam is also just a “made up” story. The New Testament is very plain that we are sinners in need of a savior because of Adam. If we can’t believe the story of Adam why should we believe in Jesus’ reason for coming.

Evolution is being crammed down the throats of every school-aged child almost every day. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. I think it is imperative that someone give people a logical reason to believe the Bible is true. I am convinced after years of reading the evidence on both sides that the Bible is true, the earth is about 6,000 years old and evolution is a faulty theory. There are books of evidence that the Earth is relatively young. There are books of evidence that the “so called” science supporting billions of years is bogus. Most people don’t even know this evidence exists. Most people don’t know that their children are being taught that the Bible is not true.

Just one example of the flaw in “old earth” teaching is the existence of fossil trees that extend through multiple layers of earth. The bottom of the tree is in a layer millions of years older than the top of the tree. Trees do not stand for millions of years waiting for the gradual accumulation of layer of sediment. The millions of years dating of the rock layers are obviously wrong.

Just one example of the fact that you cannot trust the old age dating methods: Rocks are radioactively dated based on the date they cooled from their molten state. That is when the radioactive clock is set to zero. Rocks of a known age from recent volcanoes were sent to a lab to detect the age of the rock. Twenty year old rocks were given ages of millions of years. Why should I trust the labs when the miss their dates that much.

Because of the incompatibility of the Bible with the theory of evolution (and I have just touched on a few issues) they both cannot be true. Therefore, any teaching of evolution is teaching against the Bible. We ought to fight against the teaching of our children that the Bible is not true.

I believe Genesis ought to be defended because it is foundational to the Bible. Every person can’t study every subject in detail. But I applaud people who have dedicated their life to presenting evidence that the Bible is true and that Genesis is supported by facts and we can rely on God’s word.

February 10th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Sonny

And I agree that a fundamentalist literal interpretation accommodates everything you have said. But as I said, how many people that just can’t believe this, possibly because of the teaching they are getting in school, are being turned away from even an introduction to Christ because of our dogmatic views about things that are not central or essential to salvation.

The days of using some strange creation museum evidence to get someone into the Kingdom are gone, if they ever were successful at that. I could, but I won’t present arguments against each of the things you have presented. I won’t because first, it has nothing to do with why I wrote this and second, because like you, I would have to rely on what others say not what I know.

If you want discussion about what you wrote, you could take it to the forum and see if anyone is willing. And it is okay if anyone ones to carry this on here also. But the point of this post, as Shannon picked up on is sticking to what is essential to salvation. Presenting evidence of a 6000 year old creation and a literal Adam and Eve might get some saved but a lot more would come if we could only convince them of the love of God and our love for them.

Love you and thank you for sharing

February 10th, 2009 at 11:01 am

Nancy M

There are alot of things in the Bible that I can’t wrap my mind around and quite honestly there are some things that I just don’t try to. If God inspired someone to put down in writing In the beginning God said “Light be and it was ….. to the point of all of the writing being compiled and arranged into what we now call the Holy Bible, scolars, theologians, skeptics and simple minded people alike have their points of agreement and bloody battle fields. As long as it is not a salvation issue what does it matter if one man believes the earth is 6000 years old and another man who is just as intelligent thinks the earth is many times older? Are we splitting hairs about issues that are not focused on saving souls? I do understand that passion runs deep in some areas for one while it may not be as relevant to another in that particular area but would we serve God and others better by finding common ground to build a foundation on rather that bickering about something we can just ask God about when we get to heaven. I’m sure I am about to get blasted for sounding as if it is not important to me how old the earth is. I like to think that Adam and Eve were real people not just a parable but as you mentioned Jesus did teach in parables alot. I am a visual person and the first memories I have of the Bible is the pictures in the Bible Story Books for children I use to look at. How beautiful the scenes were with all of the animals gathered together. Adam and Eve being in the midst of them and all looking so content. As simple as this seems it satisfies me, as for someone else maybe not. This is why we must all seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling not being a stumbling block to anyone. Loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself. I believe God shows himself all around us–If we are looking for Him-He will find us.

Love you

Nancy

February 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Sonny

Good comments Nancy.

And with your statements about pictures and imagery you should go to Shannon’s site and post. He is asking about imagery used in the bible.

Love you

February 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Shannon Mimbs

Justin, wow, my brother. I can tell that you are passionate about what you have shared. That is tremendous. Also, you bring up some valid points of contention with which old-earth proponents must contend. As D and I have gotten to know you and Sis. Denise a bit more, the insights you bring forth bear that much more weight in my mind. The reason being is that your insights are couched in the context of your love for Christ and others. Your relational witness of Jesus grounds your teachings. So, as long as folks are introduced to Christ (of course using intellectual argumentation but having it always grounded in Christlike love) and learn to follow him within the family of faith, I think the topics of discussion which you bring forth are interesting issues about which to talk.

Blessings

February 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Shannon Mimbs

Sorry, I’m using a separate comment to respond again. My computer battery was about to die at Barnes & Noble, so I had to wrap up quickly my previous comment.

Nancy, you hit the nail on the head, so to say, concerning relational witness – loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself. If you introduce folk to Jesus Christ through a relationship of love, then the topics which you mentioned (creation, literal vs. allegorical interpretation, etc.) can be explored further within the family of faith. Naturally, from my relationship with Christ, I desire to search the Scriptures to understand better who God is and the purpose and nature of the Church (amongst other wonderful truths). Such reading is transformational because it is engaged from one who is in a relationship with God.

While I agree that there are times when the faith must be defended in the face of secular humanism, atheism, etc., I think the crux of our message is better received in the context of love. Now, this in no wise requires one to pick one over the other. As Sonny mentions often, where we need to be is in the middle (so to say, the tension of things). The “middle” of which I am speaking is that of conversational theology that occurs within the context of a faith family. Many a folk are not concerned simply by our so-called “proofs” of God. Their encounter with God comes (foremost) from the embrace of the Church.

Love you guys!

February 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

nlitnd

After reading a few of these blogs I am praying for you to be saved along with some of these commenters. To say we keep silent about such a important issue such as Adam and eve being real denies the WORD. And God created the earth on October 23 4004 bc so it is 6012 yeras old. The Word tells us this. If you deny the WORD then you are not saved. Some of the other stuff that you write is just as bad. Some of these people responding to you are trying to get you on the right path. Listen to them and get in the WORD.

February 10th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Justin A

I’ll try to leave this subject after this. For anyone who is interested, there are a lot of people who have a lot more information already put together that I believe would convince almost anyone that the current theory of evolution is hopeless. They make a very good case for recent creation. My main concern is not with people who accept things without question. If you have a supernatural meeting with God you’ll know that God is real, as I do. My concern is for the kids who have to face the constant bombardment of millions of years and evolution. They have no way to refute teachers and textbooks without knowledge. There is plenty of evidence against evolution and for creation. However, the evidence is not in the textbooks. I didn’t know until I stumbled across it a few years ago. It is rather upsetting to know that the information against evolution is routinely censored. I think knowledge about God’s creation is a good thing. Proverbs 10:14 “Wise men lay up knowledge..”

Information on creation has been censored for so long that evolution has become mainstream. Institutions are disallowing advancement for people who do not subscribe to evolution. Watch the movie “Expelled”. Did anyone notice that the Presidential candidates were ridiculed for believing in creation? Christians are supposed to be salt and light about much more than just church on Sunday. Different people have different gifts and callings. Some are persuaded by different means and ways. Some can accept contradictions without question. I like answers and I like the answers to make sense. I hope no one really thinks it is bickering to discuss issues. Please pardon my rambling. Everyone have a good day.

February 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Sonny

Thanks for all of your posts.

Nlitnd, I don’t know why you feel the way you do or what I have said but what exactly makes you think I am not saved. I am actually at a loss to put into words what I think of your posts that would not run you off.

You sound a little judgmental and I have to ask how that shows the love of Christ. There are others here that disagree with me but they aren’t saying I am not saved. And I do read the bible, quite extensively actually.

Please come back but I would ask you to discuss instead of attack. If that is how you meant it. If you truly desire for me to be saved and think I am not then by all means, lets discuss where I have missed it.

And I am sorry it took so long to moderate your comments. I was reading a book–and the bible.

Love you all

February 10th, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Shannon Mimbs

Nlitnd,

Christian Greetings! It’s great to see you here on A Sonny Disposition. Just a few comments. I don’t think anyone here is wanting to silence important issues such as Adam and Eve. At issue is what is the “crux” of evangelism (or bearing witness to Jesus Christ). This is not to say that issues of creation (e.g. young earth vs. old earth debates) are not of importance. It is to highlight the fact that rarely when trying to win an unbeliever to Jesus Christ does “proving-methods” of the creation account prove to be the determining persuasive factor (at least not in the testimonies of Christians of which I am familiar). Admittedly, there are times (as Justin noted) when such teachings are vital (especially if one’s child is bombarded by anti-intelligent design teachings). However, all in all, the witness of the NT concerning salvation is centered around the life, death and resurrection of Christ. That those who pledge their lives to Jesus (by faith) enter into a dance-like relationship with God and one another.

I assume that by the date you have supplied, you hold to the view of Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656). However, you also state that “the Word tells us this.” Where so? Also, while Ussher’s work is very detailed and important, there are other views that are just as detailed to which other folk hold as well. For example, the Byzantine Church date of September 1, 5509 BC; Maria de Agreda date of 5199 BC; others in Judaism who hold to September or March 29, 3760 BC. The reason I am asking about this particular statement is because even Ussher utilized other resources in his dating system than just the Hebrew text.

Blessings to you and your family

February 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Sonny

Thanks Shannon

February 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Wayne