An evangelical on Genesis

[Roger Stanyard]

Inerrancy is a view held by some/many evangelcials but not all

Careful now Michael; you might make Marc blow a fuse through inductive reasoning.

[psiloiordinary]

Marc will probably simply ignore this.

The he will ignore the fact that he ignored this.

Just a guess.

[Peter Henderson]

More nastiness directed at Christians who reject YECism.

From Sarfati today:

http://creation.com/robert-mccabe-old-t ... ar-genesis

Framework Hypothesis compromise

One of the most fashionable denials of a straightforward understanding of Genesis 1–11 is the ‘Framework Hypothesis’.5 This was explicitly invented so Genesis doesn’t conflict with “science”.6 Dr McCabe has also written a two-part critique of this,7,8 so he is a good one to explain it:

“The framework view asserts that the creation ‘week’ of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literary device, a poetic or semi-poetic device, intended to present God’s creative activity in a topical, non-sequential manner, rather than a literal, sequential one.

“In particular, they divide the six days into two parallel units of three days, with the first day corresponding to the fourth day, the second to the fifth, and the third with its two creative events to the sixth with its two creative events. Thus, the first three days supposedly form a unit that is paralleled by the last three days.”

But scholars including Dr McCabe note that the parallels are forced. E.g. the sun, moon and stars (Day 4) were in the expanse/firmament (Day 2); the sea creatures (Day 5) were to fill the seas (Day 3); while nothing on Day 6 was created for these seas. Furthermore, Dr McCabe points out that the creation account is the same sort of literature as the rest of Genesis, i.e. historical narrative, while it lacks the key features of Hebrew poetry.9 Thus Genesis should be understood as history (see further explanation, box, p. 18).

Does evolution/long ages really matter?
If we either minimize or deny the import of the early chapters of Genesis as literal history, what is to stop us from doing the same with other passages of Scripture, … ?

But still, some in the church claim it’s a side-issue that does no harm. Dr McCabe strongly disagrees:

“Because our world is aggressive in its promotion of the evolutionary model, this unbiblical scheme has influenced the worldview of many in the church. But if we either minimize or deny the import of the early chapters of Genesis as literal history, what is to stop us from doing the same with other passages of Scripture, such as the confusion of the languages at Babel, turning Lot’s wife into a “pillar of salt”, the many miracles performed with Israel’s Exodus from Egypt or Christ taking five loaves and two fish to feed 5000, to name just a few? Furthermore, if the Bible’s history can’t be trusted, then why trust its morality? No wonder that with some who had been part of vibrant churches, evolutionary thinking has led them astray into moral relativism.”

First Adam and Last Adam
Dr McCabe is especially concerned when “leaders in evangelicalism accept evolution and superimpose it on the biblical record.” He recently heard one argue that Genesis 1–2 does not prohibit evolution, so there is no need to believe in a literal Adam. But then, “was there a single human ancestor whom God actually judged for his disobedience by bringing condemnation to his posterity and a curse to the creation over which he presided (Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:19–2210)?11 If not, what is to stop anyone from denying a literal last Adam (i.e. Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:45)?”

Creationist materials have a vital role to play in equipping us to be prepared to give a defence for our faith that starts with Genesis 1:1. Since our culture is aggressively hostile to a biblical worldview in every arena, such as our educational system, literature, news media outlets, entertainment, and personal interaction with others, we also need to be pro-active in disseminating biblical creationist material. This is where creationist ministries like yours and other similar ministries have a crucial role to play in the 21st century.”

This is yet again implying that unless Christianians accept young earth creation (and reject virtually all of modern day science) they are not really saved at all.

Personally, I'd feel decidedly uncomfortable in any church were tthe above was being preched. What about you Marc ? Is this the sort thing of that goes on in your church ? Do you agree with what CMI has written here ?

Who on Earth is "Dr." Robert McCabe anyway ? Never, ever heard of him.

[Roger Stanyard]

This is yet again implying that unless Christianians accept young earth creation (and reject virtually all of modern day science) they are not really saved at all.

Personally, I'd feel decidedly uncomfortable in any church were tthe above was being preched. What about you Marc ? Is this the sort thing of that goes on in your church ? Do you agree with what CMI has written here ?

Who on Earth is "Dr." Robert McCabe anyway ? Never, ever heard of him.

It's also deeply authoritarian. CMI has no members who it is accountable to; most of its material is written by no more than six or seven people dominated by Sarfati, it is a ministry of non-ordained "ministers", it's run a public campaign against other creationists - notable Answers in Genesis and John "Necrophilia" Mackay and in the UK is basically a none man band, Philip Bell. It's run a campaign against creationist (old earth) Hugh Ross and campaigns against non-creationist Christians. It does like Marc Surtees (splitter! he's a recolonist). It attracts rather nasty pieces of work like Sarfati and David Anderson. I wonder what its real views are on dirty rotten Catholiks.

Just precisely who does it speak for? Messianic Jews and a couple of misfit Banana Benders?

Again, I'm reminded of Monty Python's Life of Brian. CMI is like a 1970s British Leyland revolutionary shop stewards' committee with Sarfati playing the role of an incompetent Reg reading from a script.

Illusions of grandeur. Eee's not the Messiah, eee's a very naughty boy!

[marcsurtees]

Marc will probably simply ignore this.

The he will ignore the fact that he ignored this.

Just a guess.

How can something be "fully trustworthy" if it is not accurate and error free?

[cathy]

How can something be "fully trustworthy" if it is not accurate and error free?

Assuming you're referring to the bible-being accurate and error free does not mean it is all literal nor historical. Psalms are not literal nor are the parables-does that mean they are not accurate and error free? Tho I know you won't answer that.

I;ve just re-read genesis with no theology. As an adult reading it, I can't help but read the account of the fall as highly metaphorical. The fact that the tree gives humans the knowledge to know right from wrong, I'd read means they can then choose to do wrong in a way that their less cognitively aware hominid ancestors perhaps couldn't. Reading it literally makes the whole thing look silly-with a fruit tree obsessed God.

As for the old no death before the fall argument-leading to mass overcrowding-as far as I can recall from poorly taught RE at school and sporadic church attendence, the NT is about saving folk from death? So why are there no 2000 year old Christians around? Or is death not meant literally there.

Marc what you believe is silly, childish and idiotic. No wonder it puts people off. Still keep flying the flag for atheism, you're doing a grand job.

[Dagsannr]

The fact that the tree gives humans the knowledge to know right from wrong...

Here's the thing...

If they didn't know right from wrong before eating from the tree, how did they know that disobeying god and eating from the tree was wrong?

If they didn't know it was wrong, why did god punish them?

And even more simplistically...

Why the hell did god put that tree there in the first place?!?!

It was just begging to be eaten from.

One might almost think god engineered the whole Fall Of Man right from the start and is punishing us for not knowing the difference between right and wrong before we could know the difference!

Stupid. Utterly stupid.

[Roger Stanyard]

Marc will probably simply ignore this.

The he will ignore the fact that he ignored this.

Just a guess.

How can something be "fully trustworthy" if it is not accurate and error free?

Through interpretation. Shrug.

[cathy]

Why the hell did god put that tree there in the first place?!?!

It was just begging to be eaten from.

Well you'd think someone omniscient could have foreseen that one . I could have foreseen that one-and I wander thru life in a clueless fug most of the time. More to the point He was also omnipresent so where the hell was He when the talking snake was around? Just when he was really needed-nowhere to be seen.

One might almost think god engineered the whole Fall Of Man right from the start and is punishing us for not knowing the difference between right and wrong before we could know the difference!

Stupid. Utterly stupid.

Perchance after he'd realised the fundamental flaw in his perfect death free creation-overcrowding? Like those folk you sometimes meet at work who always engineer the blame to someone else.

Still the whole literal thing reads like a God who'd beat and banish to the streets a morally clueless toddler for eating haribo placed under its nose. Not what I'd call loving, righteous or just. You know iMarc if you were right (which you're not) I'm not sure your version of God has the qualities I'd find remotely attractive enough to worship really.

[a_haworthroberts]

"One might almost think god engineered the whole Fall Of Man right from the start and is punishing us for not knowing the difference between right and wrong before we could know the difference!"

Perhaps he realised that with no death the Earth would become horrendously overpopulated.

Once there was death, then there was the Flood - the one that caused the bottleneck in the human population (it wasn't the fault of the Lake Toba supervolcano 74,000 years' ago after all - apparently).