Friday, October 12, 2012

Biblical Doctrines Rooted In Genesis

Today, no passage of Scripture is attacked more frequently than the Book of Genesis. With the rise of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, there are many attacks on the historical accuracy and meaning of the book that lays the foundation of the Christian faith. And for enemies of Christianity, this is the perfect strategy. Satan knows better than any of us that if you remove the foundation of Christianity, then the Gospel of Christ himself will topple. When a comprehensive study of Genesis is done, one should realize that every major doctrine in Christianity has at the least a mention or shadow in the book of Genesis and the bulk of the concentration of those doctrines are based in Genesis 1-11, which are the most hotly contested chapters.

  What are these doctrines? And do all of them really have roots in Genesis? Below is a table of 32 doctrines, some minor and some major, that play a large role in Christianity. This list is not comprehensive as this was off the top of my head via a quick scan through Genesis, but it should stand out that Genesis is perhaps the most important book of the Bible. Without Genesis being historical fact, the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection is completely lost. So here is the table.


    The Major (and some Minor) Biblical Doctrines Rooted in Genesis

    7-day week
    Genesis 1
    Sabbath
    Genesis 2:2-3
    Man's Dominion over Creation
    Genesis 1:28
    Man Made in God's Image
    Genesis 1:26-27
    The Trinity
    Genesis 1:26
    A Perfect Creation
    Genesis 1:31
    Marriage
    Genesis 1:26-27; 2:24
    Work
    Genesis 2:15
    Choice to Worship God
    Genesis 2:17
    Sin
    Genesis 3
    Death
    Genesis 2:17; 3:17; 3:22
    Clothing
    Genesis 3:7; 3:21
    Blood as payment for Sin
    Genesis 3:21
    The Promise of a Savior
    Genesis 3:15
    Marriage Roles
    Genesis 3:16
    Toil,Thorns,Cursed Creation
    Genesis 3:17-19
    Animal Sacrifice
    Genesis 3:21; 4:3-4
    WorldWide Judgment of Sin
    Genesis 6-8
    Baptism
    Genesis 6-8
    Rainbow Promise
    Genesis 9:13-15
    One Human Race
    Genesis 5,10,11
    Call to the Promised Land
    Genesis 12:1
    Promise of Israel
    Genesis 12:2
    Blessing/Curses on Israel
    Genesis 12:3
    Jesus of the Order of Melchizedek
    Genesis 14:8
    Tithing
    Genesis 14:20
    Circumcision
    Genesis 17:11
    Intercession
    Genesis 18:23-33
    Jesus, the Willing/Final Sacrifice
    Genesis 22
    Firstborn/Birthright
    Genesis 21; 25:31-34; 27
    Dreams/Visions
    Genesis 37; 40; 41
    God works ALL things for the Good of those who Love him, called to his purpose
    Genesis 37;39; 41

What is also important to notice and I may compile this at a later time, is that every one of these doctrines ALSO have a fulfillment in Revelation and the End Times. Just a couple examples. The animal sacrificed to cover Adam and Eve's sin and the doctrine that we are all one human race are depicted in Revelation 5. Marriage is fulfilled in the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church. Not all details are given in each of these mentions but there is a reference or picture of these doctrines in both Genesis and Revelation.

 How well do we really understand our own beliefs and what are the roots that enable them to hold strong in the face of opposition? The entire Gospel Message of Jesus Christ points to Genesis for its foundation and points forward to Revelation 21-22 when God's Epic Story of Redemption concludes. That will be a glorious day for some but the worst nightmare for many others. As Christians we cannot pick and choose which doctrines we want to believe or not. We must take the complete package. And to understand that package, we must understand why and what makes the Gospel of Christ so compelling. You will notice that 21 of these 32 doctrines (again, NOT comprehensive) are rooted in the most attacked Chapters of the Bible in Genesis 1-11. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to lay our foundation for which we can build our faith. The building that is not built on a solid foundation will sink and collapse when the storm comes (Matthew 7), but if built on a solid foundation, it will withstand any storm. Too many Christians have no foundation for their faith because they reject or overlook Genesis. So do so to avoid controversy, but others try to interpret Genesis to support a theory that simply does not line up with this list of doctrines. As Christians, we often need to return to our roots and rediscover our first love. If we do not do this, we lose sight of what sin really did to wreck up the earth. And when we lose sight of that, we also lose sight of the real redemptive and overcoming power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When sin is belittled, so is the effect of Christ's deed at the cross. And this is something that I too am still learning and trying to grasp. As Paul learned in his life, the more we learn about God, the more we realize how much sin has done to us and how much we still live like we love the sin. But the closer we get to God, the more we realize what Jesus did for us and what he suffered for us.

It all starts in Genesis. The central focus is Christ and the Cross. And it will all end in Revelation. Like every story that has a beginning, middle, and end, the Bible is the ultimate story that is true and will end soon. But it will not be a happy ending for all. Those who reject the Gospel of Christ will not enjoy the pleasure of heaven but are already doomed and destined for the pits of hell (John 3:18). Jesus came to rescue us, but it is our choice to leave the cage with him or to stay back in the chains of sin. And that redemption and rescue would not happen if the doctrines of a perfect world (Genesis 1-2) and the entrance of sin (Genesis 3) into that perfect world did not happen. Adam and Eve were give a choice between life and death via the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now we are give the choice between life and death via the covering and remission of sin via the Blood of Jesus Christ. I have chosen to make Jesus my Lord and Savior. I am covered and bought from sin and will join God in heaven in the appointed time. Where will you spend eternity? 

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Answering a blog from "Truth4Believers"

This blog post is in response to another blog by the username "Truth4Believers" titled "The Problem with Dating Creation." The link to this blog at the bottom of my reply. The primary concern with this blog is the dating method used by Bishop Ussher via the historical accounts of Scripture to place the date of Creation at 4004 BC. The blogger goes into great length explaining the methodology used by Ussher, addresses several ways in which Ussher's methodology has been attacked, and uses that as an 'open door' for the "Old Earth Creation Model". This blog was brought to my attention in a Facebook debate after I described there were only 1600 years between Adam and Noah in accordance to the Biblical account and I quote "you assume too much." In my response, I will demonstrate where the real assumption problems are taking place after this blog was cited as a response to my defense of my claim. .................................................................................................... The real issue here is NOT the age of the earth. The age of the earth takes care of itself. The real issue in the Facebook discussion and with this blog is Biblical authority. Is the Bible a reliable source for history? If so, why? If not why not? The Bible is unique in that it contains every major genre in literature (yes including romance). Yet many people dismiss the entire Bible as just a theological text. While it is true that the Bible is a religious text, does that give legitimate reason to dismiss the historical aspects to it? The blogger has his opinions about how the Bible should be viewed from a historical context and I will demonstrate that he is not only incorrect in his approach but that he has mastered the fallacy of the double standard. ...................................................................................................................... The first part of the blog seems to be decent. There are a variety of dates that have been suggested to be the point of creation ranging from 3500BC to 5700 BC. Easily the most popular is the one proposed by Bishop Ussher at 4004 BC. Before I go any further, I want to make one thing clear. Bishop Ussher was a fallible man just like any one else on this planet. He too had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The purpose of this response is not to defend Ussher but to address the issues brought up by this blog. For the most part I can agree with how the blogger lists how Ussher came up with the date for creation at 4004 BC. But then there are challenges to this methodology that I found questionable. All quote and references to the blog I am responding too will be distinguished by a pair of slashes. // //.................................................................................................................................. // Ussher’s 4004bc creation date is also refuted by some creationists as well, mainly Old-Earth Creationists, who believe the Earth to be ancient.// ...................................................................................................................................... This is to be expected. One cannot believe in an "old earth" at millions of years old and accept Ussher's creation calculations. Darwinian Evolution is what gave rise to the popular belief that the earth is millions of years old contrary to what Ussher claimed the Bible laid out. Now just to be clear, the concept of an "old earth" is not limited to Darwin. It was just made popular by Darwin. At the root of this approach is uniformitarianism. That is, what we observe and can record today has been occurring continuously since the beginning of time. There are major flaws with this approach. A good study of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1981 will demonstrate that events happen catastrophically and very quickly. The idea of uniformitarianism was made popular before Darwin published "Origin of Species" with the help of a lawyer, Charles Lyell. He analyzed the erosion rate of Niagara Falls and reported it to be about 1 foot of erosion per year. However, the locals actually reported sometimes it was 1 meter per year, sometimes it was 3-4 meters per year. What is known is that Lyell falsified the data for purpose of discrediting the Biblical account and it became popular in the church. ................................................................................................................................ The Facebook user who cites this blog also told me I was assuming too much for adding the genealogies between Adam and Noah. I do want to make clear that this blog does NOT address that issue. I also want to make clear that this blogger does more than a fair share of assuming himself. ..................................................................................................................................... // There is no evidence that the bible’s chronology dates back to 4004bc, as not even the bible contains a complete and accurate history of events; therefore, his estimations are easily dismissible as even a valid hypothesis. The bible has been reworded, altered, and translated far too many times for it to contain anything close to an accurate chronology. All those who adhere to the belief of a creation date of 4004bc are misinterpreting the bible with unquestionable, incomprehensible, and nonsensical devotion, and all those who adhere to biblical inerrancy concerning the creation date are in fact committing the most egregious error of all.// .................................................................................................................................. Here is the first set of double standard fallacies along with assumptions I will address. The blogger claims that the Bible does not contain a complete and accurate history. First, does ANY history book contain a complete history of event? If you look at a text book of the Civil War, it will not be complete. It will have the major events that are pertinent to the discussion but it will not have every detail. It is true that the Bible does not contain every detail, but it does contain what is necessary for us to know and it gives a separation of dates for when the events happened for reference. In comparison to any other history textbook, the Bible is just as accurate if not more. If the blogger used this critique of Scripture to any 'secular' history book, he will find the same issues. Is the Bible accurate? Compared to what standard? If the Bible is the word of God as Christians claim, the Bible should BE the standard for which accuracy should be determined. The blogger does not identify what standard is being used to compare for accuracy, and only claims the it is not accurate. Later in the blog he reveals what his standards really are. ................................................................................................................................. The Bible has been reworded, altered, and translated…. Really? In worst case scenario, the English translations we have of the Bible are 99.5% accurate compared to the original manuscripts (of which we have 12,000 copies) and the VAST majority of those 'errors' are spelling/grammar errors. The blogger mentions later about Egyptian and Chinese histories. Apply the same critique to their historical events and you will have the same problems. This is yet a double standard and assuming that the secular studies are precise enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. ................................................................................................................................ Then the blogger lays in ad hominum attacks on those that support Ussher's claims. He does not say how we are misinterpreting the Bible. This is personal opinion with no supporting facts and will be dismissed as such. ...................................................................................................................................... // To put it bluntly, original creation cannot be dated using the bible. There are too many factors against those who even attempt to try.// ..................................................................................................................................... This again is personal opinion and is assuming way too much. The blogger reveals why he says this at the end of his blog. The factors the blogger attempts to bring up may only prevent us from identifying the exact date of creation, but it by no means justifies Ussher not being in the ballpark. This is the same line of thought as atheists who claim "there are mountains of evidence that support evolution" yet fail to bring one up that can withstand scrutiny. But the blogger does bring up some objections, to which I will address. ..................................................................................................................................... // Ussher estimated that the Great Flood took place during the years 2349–2348bc, but there is no evidence whatsoever that a “global flood” took place during these years. This can be seen by looking at many prominent civilizations in ancient history, such as China and Egypt.// .................................................................................................................................... The blogger earlier cited how the reigns of the judges often overlapped. According to whom and what sources are being referenced here? This is just an assertion that assumes that the secular histories of Egypt and China are accurate and the Bible's is not. There are cases in the Biblical account where the Kings of Israel overlapped reign. Tibini and Omri co-reigned (1 Kings 16:21) over Israel for 5 years, before Omri became the sole ruler of Israel. Also, Uzziah co-reigned with his son, Jothan, while Uzziah fought with leprosy. So where there is an overlap in Israel's rulers, it is listed in the account. No such listing is found in the Judges' accounts. .................................................................................................................................... There is another issue here as I mentioned above. A double-standard yet again. The blogger fails to realize that Egypt ALSO had pharaoh's who reigns overlapped. That actually puts Ussher's account much closer to being accurate than the skeptics will like to claim. .................................................................................................................................... // There is no evidence that the human population was wiped out during this time, and there is no geological evidence that a massive flood took place during this time. There is no evidence that humans came about in the year 4004bc, as human populations were believed to already have been 5–7 million in the fifth-century bc.// ................................................................................................................................... Really? The evidence is much stronger than the blogger realizes. Genetics demonstrate that humans trace to single sources for males at 4400 years ago and females at 6000 years ago. Perfectly lining up with Ussher's account of Noah's Flood and Creation. The world population growth charts also line up perfectly with the dates Ussher provides. Looking at the charts today, the world's population tends to double about every 40-60 years. Needless to say, this is not the same rates we see throughout history, but all we have to do is demonstrate is that we could get to a world population of 7 billion from 8 people 4400 years ago. The math is quite simple. From 8 people at 4400 years ago, we'd hit a world population level of over 8 billion NOT including wars, famines, pestilence, etc. Now let's do the same math for 50,000 years ago. We should have a world's population of 8.7 E 99. At 500,000 years ago, we should have a world population level of 8.7 E 990. This is talking about 125,000 people, per square inch. So the evidence of a bottleneck at 4400 years ago due to Noah's Flood is not only feasible, but very likely. .................................................................................................................................. Now, the claim of no evidence is demonstrated shortly below. One CANNOT believe in an "old earth" while simultaneously believing in a Global Flood. Why? Because a Global Flood wipes out the dating techniques that demonstrate an old earth. This author not only says there is no evidence for a global flood at this time, he essential is saying a global flood did not happen PERIOD. ..................................................................................................................................... // The Tower of Babel narrative (mentioned in detail later) was believed to have followed a short time after the Great Flood. Up until that point, the bible states that humans were united under “one language and of one speech.” According to Ussher’s calculation, the Tower of Babel existed around 2300–2100bc. However, archaeological evidences indicate that many languages existed before this time, and there are no historical records during that time for this massive tower.// .................................................................................................................................. Again, does the same scrutiny used against Ussher's account still apply to these to these other languages/cultures? It should. Archaeological evidence? Such as? What I found at the end of the article is a claim that science KNOWS that the earth is millions of years old. I will address that below. What I see frequently is when these archaeological studies are performed, the #1 dating method used to determine when such artifacts were used is radiometric dating. Very little raised the "assuming too much" flag than radiometric dating. So I will address that one now. .................................................................................................................................. There is only one thing we can determine from radiometric dating without assumptions: the half-life. We do not know how much of the mother/daughter isotopes were originally there or how much we are supposed to have. We do not know how much leeching there is (how much isotope enters or leaks out). We do know that solar storms will often affect the decay rate, so the even the half-life is put into question when the isotope is taken outside the lab. And the worst part of it. There is not a single piece of evidence that I know of in which the object's date is previously known and the radiometric dating method gets it right. Here is a short list for what is claimed to be the most accurate radiometric dated isotope: Potassium-Argon which is used predominately for lava flows, with the known date of the rock sample and the radiometric date given. ....................................................................................................................................
So with this SHORT list, we can easily see that radiometric dating cannot be relied upon for unknown dates if we cannot trust it for known dates. Many Young-Earth Creationists speakers will challenge skeptics to provide HISTORICAL evidence of civilizations older than 4400 years. Evidence such as calendars, trade documents, etc. Not a piece of pottery or a spear. .................................................................................................................................. So that being said, what evidence of languages already being established, written, and recorded prior to the dates given for the Tower of Babel are there? That's a good question. What is known is that language groups such as Ethnologue and VistaWide World Languages have been able to distinguish a maximum of 94 language families. If you count the heads of families records in Genesis 10 between Shem, Ham, and Japeth, and with Peleg (whose birth is often believed to have been when the dispersion took place), and you get a minimum of 78 families. That's pretty well in the ballpark. It is very interesting to note that many of the European, West Asia, India, and African cultures can be traces back to the people listed in Genesis 10. It gets harder to trace the people of Australia and the Americas and East Asia because of how much dispersal was going on. Look in the future for a book (I believe it is slated to be released next year) by Bodie Hodge about the tracing of the peoples of the Tower of Babel account. ..................................................................................................................................... // Because original creation cannot be dated, this opens the doors for believers of Old-Earth Creationism, who believe that the Earth may possibly be millions or billions of years old in respect to biblical passages and interpretations, as well as scientific evidences dating Earth far longer than 6,000 years.// ................................................................................................................................... And here we get the real intent of the blog. Now, let us assume all the skepticism he brought forth against Ussher's methodology is correct. How much would that impact Ussher's dating? A few centuries? Worst case 1-2,000 years? The blogger demands EXACT precision for Ussher's account. What is the error factor for the estimates for an "old earth"? Half a billion years. Under the bloggers standard for scrutiny against Ussher, the old earth models stand no chance. Do error factors in Ussher's accounts open the door for OEC? Not even close. Ussher may be off on a few things. He is fallible and could be wrong. But was Ussher in the ballpark? Absolutely. .................................................................................................................................. // However, there is no argument amongst the scientific community that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.//...................................................................................................... // Open any modern science book and it will state that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It will state that the earliest form of human ancestors first appeared around 6–7 million years ago.// ................................................................................................................................... This is an unfounded, biased claim with no evidence and is an appeal to the majority fallacy. This argument stems from a belief that no one who believes in a young earth can be a true scientists. This argument also stems from a belief that the Bible is only valid for theological discussions, which is clearly not true. Yes, you can open any modern science textbook and it will say this. This is an appeal to authority as well. The textbooks are FULL of inaccurate data. They still contain Haeckel's Embryo drawings and the Spotted Moth Experiments which were both proven to be frauds. Just because it is in a textbook that does not make it correct. .................................................................................................................................... // The Ussher-Lightfoot chronology, the Great Flood, original creation, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, and literal creationism are not taught. It has nothing to do with anti-Christian sentiments; it has nothing to do with church and state separation; it has to do with valid evidence and the pursuit for accurate knowledge. There is no evidence that the Earth was created within the past 6,000–10,000 years. There is substantial evidence to prove otherwise. We cannot use the bible to date when creation actually occurred. We must look elsewhere for our answers, and we have succeeded in doing just that.// .................................................................................................................................. And this is the most telling of it all. There is a reason they are not taught and it does have EVERYTHING to do with anti-Christian sentiments. A search for accurate knowledge will not use appeals to authority, appeals to majority, and they most certainly will not use a double standard on everything related to the Bible. The blogger knows that to accept the Biblical account of creation also means to accept that there is an issue called sin and that mankind is subject to an all-powerful God. There is no room in Scripture for an 'old-earth'. This blogger clearly reject the Bible as any authority figure and blames Ussher for not using his world-view. There is more evidence that the earth was creating within the past 6000-10000 years than this blogger could imagine and because of his 'old earth' view, he MUST reject it all. He has demonstrated he has no interest in the truth, only what he believes. He fails to realize that like Ussher, there are MANY scientists and historians out there who take the Biblical account as history. Is that an appeal to authority or majority? No. I am not going by their opinion, only stating that his claim is unsubstantiated. ................................................................................................................................... As I said in the beginning, this is an issue of Biblical authority. This blogger rejects the Bible from being a source of evidence or an authority on the matter. He expects exact precision from the Biblical scholars and yet gives any 'modern scientist' the benefit of the doubt. He fails to realize that these scholars who come up with the young earth model do their homework. He does not just reject the creation account of the Bible, he rejects the Bible in any historical account. If he was honestly seeking the truth, he will find the same types of errors he claims Ussher is making in every other history time line. The genealogies found in Scripture are more accurate and more complete than any other genealogical account in ancient history. He has no problems with Babylonian history found on a few pottery stones, which is by no means complete, yet blames the Bible for not having every tiny detail. This blogger rejects Ussher and the "young earth" account because he rejects the Bible as the word of God. ................................................................................................................................... Dr. Michael Brown in a recent interview with William Lane Craig said this. "If there were no other books other than the Bible, I would believe the earth was created several thousand years ago." .................................................................................................................................... Martin Luther said, in addressing challenges to the Genesis 1 account. "But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are." .................................................................................................................................... Psalm 118:8 says "It is better to trust in the Lord, than in the ways of man."................. Proverbs 3:5 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."..................................................................................................... Romans 3:4 says "Yeah, let God be the truth and every man a liar." ..................................................................................................................................... Ussher trusted that God meant what he said in the Genesis account. Was he 100% accurate? I don't know. Was he close? Easily. How do I trust him more than I trust the 'modern scientist'? He stood on the Word of God. I will act as the Bereans whom Paul praised for not taking his word for it and testing what he said against Scripture. I will do this for the OEC and YEC alike. The Old earth models masquerade as science but are rift with unscientific assumptions. Ussher assumes one thing and one thing only primarily: that the Bible is the word of God and is the authority on ALL matters of life. This blogger assumes ever so much more. It assumes the Bible is not the authority on any matters except spiritual ones. It assumes that man's wisdom is perfect when the Bible is very clear that man has fallen and the creation is cursed as a result of sin. One cannot take the fallen creation and fallen man's understanding of creation which is really about 1% or less of what there is to know, and claim that it more reliable than the word of God. I will echo Martin Luther's response to the Biblical skeptics, to the 'modern scientists' and to this blogger: "Face it. God knows what happened better than you do." ...................................................................................................................................... If we are to call ourselves Christians we need to get our heads out of these other books and get our nose back in the Bible, the word of God. ..................................................................................................................................... Blog being addressed found at: http://truth4believers.livejournal.com/1037.html