Who Interprets Genesis?

What do you mean that Adam is the head of all men?

"So why again should the church accommodate the long ages demanded by “modern science”?"

There is a good reason for this, Valiant. It's because modern science has proof to back up their claims and there are many fruits from this knowledge that so many benefit from. Chances are you've eaten genetically modified foods today and those foods would be impossible without the knowledge of genetics and evolution. The same goes for predicting weather patterns and other natural disasters. Science has a much better track record than scripture or prophecy. Same goes for medicine. Science has saved more lives than faith healers or exorcists could ever hope to. That's why it has the credibility it has.

The literal interpretation of Genesis misses the point of Genesis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original telling of Genesis done as poetry in old Hebrew? It was not structured as a first hand account and it was not structured as a science book. It was a theological tale just like the many others that circulated around that time. The theme is still salient, but it doesn't have to be true to have an impact. Just as movies like Star Wars and the Godfather don't have to be true to have an impact either. To take it literally is to miss the point. The bible isn't god and worshipping the text as such is tantamount to idolotry. There's nothing wrong with putting a context on these stories. They don't have to be literal in order to have the necessary spiritual impact.

Jack,

Your faith in science and medicine aren awe-inspiring! I do have some questions, however: do you know that a major cuase of death in the United States is properly prescribed and administered prescription drugs? Do you know that half of the people who suffer heart attacks have normal colestoral? Do you know that people with high colestoral on average live longer than people with low colestoral? Do you know that people with high colestoral are more resistant to infection.

Do you know that many drugs require liver testing to make sure that the drugs are not damaging the liver? When my father died, he was on colestoral medication, as well as 10 other prescription drugs. Three of those drugs were not suppose to be taken together. Dad did of liver cancer, by the way.

Do you know that colestoral drugs are being recommended now for small children? Medical science is sucking money out of people's pockets while killing them.

Thank you George! I could add much to what you have said considering the practice of “traditional medicine” also from the experience of a family member.

It is evident that “modern medicine” is like “modern science” in that it has been hijacked by evolutionary philosophy. We are not ‘wonderfully and fearfully made’ in the image of God. According to them we are nothing more than advanced monkeys and bio-chemical machines. There is a “drug” for every aliment. Their emphasis is to cover the symptom rather than find and treat the cause of the symptom. Many times their “cures” cause further damage.

And in general the public holds the physician in the same high regard as the scientist, as if they know what they are doing.

I am sincerely sorry to hear what happened to your father. I can sympathize. My father had a heart attack a few years back. He is now on medication and it has helped improve his quality of life. I doubt he would be as healthy as he would be today if he didn't have these medications to help him and he probably would not have survived if the doctors tried praying for him or conducted an exocism instead of using modern medicine.

You're right in that people do abuse perscription drugs. But people abuse anything. Singling out perscription drugs ignores all the good they do. What about those who don't abuse them and use the drugs to improve their quality of life? They were all made through research, science, and with a touch of capitalism. The abuse of drugs says more about our health care system then it does the argument I made about modern medical science. It still beats the old days of using leeches, blood-letting, and attacking Jews, witches, vampires, and werewolves to combat disease. We owe our lives to what science has uncovered with medicine. I don't have faith in it as some do a god. I trust it's track record and I see no other decent alternative.

"It is evident that “modern medicine” is like “modern science” in that it has been hijacked by evolutionary philosophy."

Evident by what? There is no philosophy behind modern medicine. It is science, plain and simple. They research what works and use the knowledge gained about the human body and life in general to treat disease. And guess what? None of that knowledge would be possible without evolution. It is only through evolution that many functions of life, disease, and microbial systems make sense. There is nothing gained by assuming a god poofed it into existance with magic.

Your cynical approach to medicine ignores the bigger picture. The idea that all medicine throws pills at a situation is a misnomer. It says more about our health care system than it does against science in general. Look at countries with different systems. They emphasize eating well and exercising and they do research just as America does in an effort to combat disease.

You're also ignoring that diseaes is very complex. Science doesn't fully understand it, but they are making great strides. In order to ease suffering scientists need to understand what they're dealing with on a physiological and biological level. Evolution helps this understand and it has led to many life-saving discoveries like penicillan, vaccines, and surgeries. No exorcist, witch-doctor, or priest ever cured anything. Medical science has a much better track record and that is why it has merit in modern society.

WWM, the headship of Adam is a fundamental doctrine that would be unknown to man except through revelation. In Romans 5 the apostle teaches that Adam as the first man represented all men when he fell into sin. As a result, his offspring are born with a sin nature which binds all men to a life of sin. In Romans 5, Adam is as real as Moses and as real as Christ.

What truth of the gospel is at risk? Who cares whether Genesis is true or not. What difference does it make?

"Why does “modern science” demand long ages?"-from the article

Well, quite simply, to carry off the deception of course.

Ever since the garden, Satan has been tempting man by asking, "Has God said?". We see from the original sin, how that God had good thoughts toward man and provided wonderful things, and because man chose to disobey, death entered.

Satan has told only part of the story, as he did with Eve. Yes, God said to eat of every tree of the garden, EXCEPT the one that was forbidden. Yes, they did not PHYSICALLY fall over dead that day, yet death entered and man developed an evolving LIFE SPAN. More importantly, man suffered SPIRITUAL DEATH, in that he separated himself from God. Reconciliation back to God made necessary the death of Jesus Christ.
The evolutionists rightly discern "natural selection", but they allow themselves to be decieved by carrying the concept too far in disobedience. Man does evolve within his species, because "like begats like" according to the Word.

Evolution is not so much a science, as it is a philosopy borne of disobedience-for life has never been created scientifically from nothing. Man mixes chemicals and comes up with many wonderful concoctions, but this is not how God operated-for who created the chemicals with which they experiment?
Do not be decieved, no one has ever created life of any form, in the lab when starting with nothing, as God did. The Bible says plainly that the creation took six days, with the "evening and the morning" being a day's length, and it began with nothing.
Was anyone there to witness this? No, of course not, for man had not been created yet. God has revealed the truth to us by His Spirit as He still does in all things today. Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
When we try to accomodate the worldly by melding billions and millions of years into Biblical days, we are demonstrating to them our own lack of faith. In essence, we call God a liar, and undermine the very basis for what we say we believe.
If the creation is not true, then why think that Moses existed? why believe the testimony of Jesus Christ? These are the questions that Satan then poses to the unbelieving, attempting to destroy their faith-and undermine what God "hath said".

No, it is all true for God does not lie. He is not man that He should.

"Well, quite simply, to carry off the deception of course."

The very fact that you're using the fruits of science (computers and the internet) to condemn it show a blatant hypocrisy of startling proportions. If you were a man of conviction and believed that science was part of some plan against god, you wouldn't participate in it. That means no more electricity, no more cars, no more computers, no more life-saving medical treatment, and 70 percent of all the food you eat (that which has been engineered by science) would have to be cut out of your diet. Do you plan on doing this? If not, then you are being a hypocrite.

Evolution is not nor has it ever been a philosophy. It simply says that allelic frequency change in populations over time. This has been proven time and again to the point where denying it is like denying the holocaust. You're right that human beings have not engineered a cell from scratch, but they are getting close. Science has engineered new life processes by creating new bacteria, viruses, and animals that never would have emerged naturally. It has helped further our understanding of life and made for advancements that have saved countless lives.

Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis and it has more evidence than creationism. Nobody has ever seen something poofed into being by magic and nobody in science argues that. If you want to believe god made everything, that's fine. But your belief does not outweight the vast knowledge of science and to condemn it is to be a hypocrite of the highest level.

I will have to respectfully disagree here. Evolution can morph into or give birth a philosophy. The idea that man is improving, or evolving, to survive--the liberal view of that is that we are moving toward justice-- is a philosophy.

Social Darwinism is a philosophy

‘So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died’ [Genesis 5:5].

In Romans 5, Adam is as real as Moses and Christ. The apostle not only considers him a real person, but uses him to teach the doctrine of headship. Regarding sin, death and condemnation Adam is our representative. Because of his sin, we all inherit his nature as natural born sinners already condemned to death.

And according to his sin, the natural man sees this as grossly unfair. Therefore, in his enmity he concludes that if there is a God, he must be the devil. At the heart of unbelief is the attitude that man deserves something from God other than wrath. We are born with an attitude of pride and self importance, unaware of our own depravity and our rightful condemnation before God.

How can God hold every man accountable for Adam’s sin? In Romans 5 the apostle answers this question. But we do not like his answer, not realizing that his answer is part of the gospel. If we are condemned for Adam’s sin, then we also can be accounted righteous for Christ’s righteousness. Christ is the head of His people just as Adam is head of his.

So if sin and condemnation and death did not originate with Adam’s sin, then the doctrines of justification and imputed righteousness and eternal life in Christ must also fall. When the church compromises the authority of Scripture to accommodate the vain philosophy of naturalism, it is to be expected that the gospel message will be compromised and weakened.

The biblical doctrine of justification depends on the biblical doctrine of depravity. The errors in justification originate from errors in depravity. We always think too highly of ourselves in the unregenerate state. Only the regenerate man is aware of his deep depravity. ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’, is his plea.

You're confusing the science with the twistings of late 19th century culture, which was already very in tuned with 'social darwinism' before Darwin ever even picked up a book. It's true that there were those who thought Darwinism could prove their racists beliefs, but it wasn't something that spawned from evolution. It came from racism, plain and simple. None of those who used it had even a medial understanding of what evolution is. If they did then they would know that evolution doesn't say things are 'improving.' Evolution at no point says that. It only says that allelic frequency will change in a population over time. This has been observed and verified. A species never 'improves.' It only adapts and changes with decent in accordance to the pressures of natural selection. There is no improvement or philosophy to speak of. Evolution is science and social darwinism is a product of racist mentality from the 19th century, none of which has any bearing or effect on evolution today.

You're a smart person, Caday. So is Valiant and Chiefest. Here's a very important piece of knowledge for this issue. Anyone and I mean anyone who tries to make evolution a philosophy and not a science does not understand evolution or science in any respect. If they did they would never use it to justify their dogma. It's important to know what it is you're using before you present it and most of the anti-evolution crowd out there has continually shown that they really don't know a thin about evolution or science when they try to argue against it.

"And according to his sin, the natural man sees this as grossly unfair. Therefore, in his enmity he concludes that if there is a God, he must be the devil. At the heart of unbelief is the attitude that man deserves something from God other than wrath."

I have a question about this Valiant. If your god is so vengeful for a sin that one man committed many years ago and one that nobody alive today is responsible for, then how is that god a loving god? I hear this all the time even before I was a non-believer. God is vengeful and full of wrath, yet loving and forgiving. No non-believer will say that they deserve more from god. I certainly don't. I only say that it's a bit hypocritical to say god is loving and then describe him as a vengeful, ruthless, jealous, murdering, self-absorbed, violent, genocidal, infanticial, deranged bully.

I sincerely don't understand how god can be loving yet so vengeful at the same time. There's no consistency with god in the bible and that is why biblical Christianity seems so inconsistent. There isn't much mercy, only fear, guilt, and self-loathing. You call the philosophy of naturalism (or non-believers) vain, but biblical Christianity is guilty of the same sins it condemns. It has with it the arrogant pride that they're right and everything else is wicked and wrong. It's led to witch hunts, bigotry, racism, and ignorance. In many ways the message it conveys is one of hypocrisy.

According to Scripture, when and under what circumstances was the first death?

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Here is an example of death before the fall. God tells Adam he can eat from every tree, but the very act of eating requires death of a certain living system like fruit, plants, or animals. It also implies that he could eat meat, which would also require killing the animals that god created. He said very clearly that man had domain over the earth and that meant being able to use the resources provided for food. So there would be death. There would have to be if this was to make any sense.

The bible does not appear to be specific when it comes to death. It never says there was no death or at the very least, human death, before the fall. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just the act of eating in Genesis denotes that there was death. The fall would not be the first death overall if you're going to use this definition.

Man began to die physically the moment that they disobeyed God. Spiritual death was instant, because when they chose the temporal over the eternal they put enmity (Romans 5:10)between God and themselves.
One might also look at the death of the animals that God slew to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Thus the first blood was shed to provide a covering for the effects of sin. This blood was insufficient (Heb 10:4), of course, and later the perfect sacrifice (Heb 9:11-14), Jesus Christ, died to provide an everlasting covering and propitiation (1 John 4:10) for man's sin.

God made provision through death and the shedding of blood necessary for the coverings for Adam and his wife…

‘Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them’ [Genesis 3:21].

The coverings of skin presume the shedding of blood and the death of the animals. From the beginning of sin, death and the shedding of blood has been the means of covering. This prefigured the Old Covenant bloody sacrifices and their fulfillment in the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

When sin entered the creation, death also entered…

‘…through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned [Romans 5:12].

But where sin did abound, grace did much more abound...

‘…if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ’ [Romans 5:17].

This is the purpose of God that through the Gospel the redeemed shall praise Him for the glory of His grace.

I apologize, but Valiant never specified what kind of death we are talking about. Is it death just for man? Or is it death in general? Because it seems Chiefest concedes there was death for animals to provide skins for man. Of course this came later and was not mentioned in Genesis (no specifications if those tunics were made of animal skins), but if this is the case then how can you say there was no death? There clearly was, even if it wasn't death for mankind.

Now spiritual death is a different story. That is something that's worth debating because it is a theological concept, not a phyisical manifestation. It his hard to prove this because it is based on belief and spiritual concepts rather than anything that is measurable. But even as a non-believer, I understand that spiritual death is a core tenant of Christianity and what happened both in Genesis and later with Jesus play a huge part in it.

Just a thought.

With what significance is it that one of the first, if not the first, things God did was to clothe Adam and Eve? What does this say about the process of sin?

Your thoughts?

Chiefest, I have reread Bunyan on Genesis 3 and recommend it as most profitable reading. Let’s discuss these things using Bunyan’s exposition as a starting point…

http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegorie s/Exposition.Genesis/Chapter.III.html

For example, I like what he has to say about Adam’s nakedness and his own efforts to cover himself.

What's left to discuss?

Wonderful reading.

His exposition of the curse applied to Adam and Eve fitting with their sin of role reversals regarding headship is especially relevant today. The NT admonishments for husband and wife are consistent with our weaknesses to fulfill our proper roles.

The essential unity of the Scriptures is there for those looking for it. The curse is removed in Christ.

All I said is that Evolution can morph into a philosophy. The irony here though is that those who reject physical evolution for Biblical reasons seem all to ready to embrace social darwinism

Saw reference to John Bunyan. Love to read different thoughts about what happened in the garden. Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

You're right in the sense that it is ironic those who reject evolution tend to be guilty of the very things they condemn it for, but at the same time it's still worth noting that those that try to extrapolate some kind of philosophy from it have little or no understanding of what evolution (or science for that matter) is or how it works. To associate these igornant idealogues with evolution is an insult to anybody who actually takes the time to research and understand it.

Can we agree with Bunyan that the language in Genesis 3 can be taken as the general result of sin and the gracious provision of God?

Are men by nature fearful because they know that they stand exposed before God? Will they hide behind their own man made coverings? How is it that God calls men to Himself and provides them with a proper covering?

Even in the midst of rebellion that plunged mankind into untold misery, God was preaching the gospel to them even in Genesis 3. Rather than destroy them for their rebellion, He chose to magnify His grace so that the objects of that grace might praise Him. In redemption He glorifies Himself [John 17] and in wrath He glorifies Himself [Romans 9]. Is this not the doctrine of the Bible?

The unregenerate focus on the wrath and not the mercy. The regenerate stand amazed at the mercy for one such as him.

I think that you have provided a partial explanation for some fear but it is in no way an exhaustive one. Much of the fear we see today is situational

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Adam and Eve feared in that they had rejected the love of God for adultery with the world (James 4:4). Fear entered because they were no longer perfect, but corrupted. Their unity, their intimacy, with God was destroyed.

We fear when we doubt the precious promises that God had made to us, as He did to them. If we believed His promises, why would we fear?
Would we fear death? nothing more than an exchange of the corruption for the incorruption for the believer. Yes, the sting of death is sin.
Would we fear man? it is God we should fear for He hath power over the soul. No man can do anything except it be given him of God.
Would we fear our creditors? He said he'd give us what the Gentiles seek if we only would seek Him first.
Would we fear the unknown? is our Father not in control of all situations?
In Christ we can put our fears away and know perfect love, if we only believe as the scripture has said.

Adam was cursed to toil for survival; he was made to leave the "rest" found within obedience to God:

Hebrews 3:18
And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

We can not enter if we believe not, and Adam could not stay because he did not believe.

Isaiah 26:3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.