My first thoughts in reading the first paragraph or two turned out to be your first point. If you don't believe Genesis 1-11, why would you bother believing the rest of the Bible? And why do some people take such joy in trying not to believe those first chapters and make others not believe them, too? Some people seem to want to make faith harder than it really has to be.
Jack, thank you for this article. You touched upon the idea that if Genesis 1-11 is allegorical, where did sin originate? I've never heard an adherent of theistic evolution offer a scriptural explanation of the origin of sin beyond Genesis 3. I would go so far as to say that theistic evolutionists are in salvific jeopardy. How much of the word can one bring into question or reject and still have God's approval? Syllogistically speaking, Jesus is the word. The word teaches a literal fall of man. Therefore, whoever rejects the word rejects Jesus. After all, Christ referred to "the beginning" as a literal time and event and the creation of man and woman as an instant act of creation (Matthew 19:4).
Lastly, Exodus 20:11 should be considered. Moses said, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." The word "days" is the Hebrew word that means a day as defined by evening and morning. One would have to do amazing exegetical gymnastics to get around that reality.
Jack - I enjoyed reading this! My two thoughts are this:
1. If you will not believe the very first chapter of the Bible why would you believe the rest?
2. The irony is that it seems that people who say Genesis 1 is not literal fall into the same deception as Eve. In Genesis 3:1 the cunning Serpent says "Has God indeed said..." Then in verse 4 says "you will not surely die." Satan got Eve to not trust in God's words. Not believing Genesis 1 is the same thing. Satan has got you just like Eve if you don't believe Genesis 1.
You make a good point. When we relinquish the value of Scripture as an accurate historical record of creation, it undermines our overall view of the Bible and opens the door to complacency and compromise in other areas of life. While denying a literal creation of the universe and the six-day renovation of the earth for the creation of humanity does not affect the basis of our salvation—for that comes by believing that Christ died for our sins and was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3–4)—it will inevitably influence our stance on modern issues concerning morality, sin, righteousness, and goodness. Since the facts of the gospel are grounded in Scripture, if we do not accept sections of Scripture as literal, we create space for the infiltration of false gospels, which are sadly prevalent in Christianity today.
Yes, that's a reference to Matthew 19:4-6 and His direct appeal to the marriage text of Genesis 2, and Matthew 24:37-38 where He pointed to Noah and the ark.
My first thoughts in reading the first paragraph or two turned out to be your first point. If you don't believe Genesis 1-11, why would you bother believing the rest of the Bible? And why do some people take such joy in trying not to believe those first chapters and make others not believe them, too? Some people seem to want to make faith harder than it really has to be.
They really do. Seems like they're desperate for validation.
Jack, thank you for this article. You touched upon the idea that if Genesis 1-11 is allegorical, where did sin originate? I've never heard an adherent of theistic evolution offer a scriptural explanation of the origin of sin beyond Genesis 3. I would go so far as to say that theistic evolutionists are in salvific jeopardy. How much of the word can one bring into question or reject and still have God's approval? Syllogistically speaking, Jesus is the word. The word teaches a literal fall of man. Therefore, whoever rejects the word rejects Jesus. After all, Christ referred to "the beginning" as a literal time and event and the creation of man and woman as an instant act of creation (Matthew 19:4).
Lastly, Exodus 20:11 should be considered. Moses said, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." The word "days" is the Hebrew word that means a day as defined by evening and morning. One would have to do amazing exegetical gymnastics to get around that reality.
I agree it can become a salvation issue, depending on how much someone knows and how willful they are in their rejection of Scripture.
Good thoughts, hadn't really thought about that before!
Jack - I enjoyed reading this! My two thoughts are this:
1. If you will not believe the very first chapter of the Bible why would you believe the rest?
2. The irony is that it seems that people who say Genesis 1 is not literal fall into the same deception as Eve. In Genesis 3:1 the cunning Serpent says "Has God indeed said..." Then in verse 4 says "you will not surely die." Satan got Eve to not trust in God's words. Not believing Genesis 1 is the same thing. Satan has got you just like Eve if you don't believe Genesis 1.
That's a great point about the deception
You make a good point. When we relinquish the value of Scripture as an accurate historical record of creation, it undermines our overall view of the Bible and opens the door to complacency and compromise in other areas of life. While denying a literal creation of the universe and the six-day renovation of the earth for the creation of humanity does not affect the basis of our salvation—for that comes by believing that Christ died for our sins and was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3–4)—it will inevitably influence our stance on modern issues concerning morality, sin, righteousness, and goodness. Since the facts of the gospel are grounded in Scripture, if we do not accept sections of Scripture as literal, we create space for the infiltration of false gospels, which are sadly prevalent in Christianity today.
Could you give a little more context on this sentence and how we know that Jesus believed in a literal interpretation?
“Jesus believed Adam and Noah existed and that the flood happened, and drew on creation order to make important points.”
Yes, that's a reference to Matthew 19:4-6 and His direct appeal to the marriage text of Genesis 2, and Matthew 24:37-38 where He pointed to Noah and the ark.