The Creation Account: Was God Confused?

It has been sug­gest­ed to me that a top­ic I should blog about is the seem­ing con­tra­dic­tion between Gen­e­sis 1 & 2. An inter­est­ing topic–one I’ve encoun­tered in the past from unbe­liev­ers on more than one occasion. 

That being said, though, I need to explain the posi­tion I have when I approach the word of God with any kind of dif­fi­cul­ty in mind.

  • I believe the word of God is per­fect & infal­li­ble; when it speaks, it speaks rightly.
  • I believe that the word of God has been trans­lat­ed to us per­fect­ly and with­out error, accord­ing to the promise of God.
  • I believe that any dif­fi­cul­ty had in the word of God is on our end, for who is man that he should com­pre­hend with­out dif­fi­cul­ty the mind of an omni­scient Almighty.
  • I believe that God meant what He said and said what He meant, and that the Bible is lit­er­al unless is specif­i­cal­ly states oth­er­wise (i.e., by describ­ing things as alle­go­ry or para­ble for us, or by defin­ing what cer­tain sym­bols mean).
  • I believe that the Bible is a whol­ly com­plete book, and that to under­stand it prop­er­ly, it must be right­ly divid­ed and that indi­vid­ual pas­sages and teach­ings must be com­pared with the rest of the word to get a com­plete picture.

On to Gen­e­sis 1 and Gen­e­sis 2…

Gen­e­sis 1

The order of creation:

  1. Mat­ter, space, and time (v.1).
  2. Light (v.3).
  3. The First Heav­en, the sky (v.6–8).
  4. Land appears (v.9).
  5. Plants (v.12).
  6. Stars, the sun, the moon (v.14–16).
  7. Sea life, birds (v.20).
  8. Land ani­mals (v.24).
  9. Man & woman, the pin­na­cle of Cre­ation (v.27).

Gen­e­sis 2

The order of creation:

  1. Man (v.7).
  2. The Gar­den of Eden (v.8).
  3. The plants of the Gar­den (v.9).
  4. The rivers of the Gar­den (v.10–14).
  5. The ani­mals of the Gar­den (v.19).
  6. Woman (v.22).

It is claimed that the order of cre­ation is dif­fer­ent in each instance, that two con­tra­dic­to­ry Cre­ation beliefs are tacked onto each oth­er and both ascribed to Moses. The Jews appar­ent­ly “just accept­ed this” because after all, they were “just stories.”

The Jews also wor­shipped a gold­en calf while Moses was talk­ing with God. What the mass­es believe mat­ters not.

But, if you look at the order of cre­ation, there isn’t any­thing con­tra­dic­to­ry. Gen­e­sis 1 serves as a broad overview, and “thus the heav­ens and the earth were fin­ished, and all the host of them,” con­cludes Gen­e­sis 2:1 with regards to the pre­ced­ing chap­ter. How­ev­er, with 2:4, a more detailed look is giv­en to the most impor­tant part of “the gen­er­a­tions of the heav­ens and the earth when they were cre­at­ed, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…”

The focus moves from that of the whole world to a Gar­den, east­ward in Eden. God describes for us how the man (who was more con­cise­ly men­tioned in chap­ter 1) was placed in this Gar­den after his cre­ation, how he con­sid­ered many ani­mals for a help, and how God had to spe­cial­ly form a woman to ful­fill man’s desire for com­pan­ion­ship. All this is described in sig­nif­i­cant­ly less detail in chap­ter 1.

The rec­on­cil­i­a­tion is easy and requires no trick of the text. The cre­ative acts of God men­tioned in Gen­e­sis 2:4–25 take place in the Gar­den of Eden, a much nar­row­er scope which is sum­ma­rized in brief in Gen­e­sis 1 by sim­ply say­ing that God cre­at­ed man and woman.

Gen­e­sis 2 does not seek to rewrite the order of cre­ation (for if it did, there would only be a Gar­den of Eden, which man even­tu­al­ly became banned from. Clear­ly, there is more than the Garden!).

Gen­e­sis 2 seeks to com­ple­ment Gen­e­sis 1 by adding the details which are more per­ti­nent to us–where we came from, what are our ori­gins, and who were our first parents?

Tru­ly, any sup­posed con­tra­dic­tions with­in the word of God are caused by either unbe­lief, a fail­ure to study, or will­ful igno­rance. May we not be guilty of any of the three.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

21 responses to “The Creation Account: Was God Confused?”

  1. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    “The focus moves from that of the whole world to a Gar­den, east­ward in Eden.”

    Where does it say this? I believe this is your addi­tion to the text.

    There is noth­ing in the text to sup­port your easy reconciliation.

    There are two dif­fer­ent accounts of cre­ation and your argu­ment comes down to “It is the word of God which is inerrant and there­fore this expla­na­tion is valid regard­less of tex­tu­al evi­dence because it solves the ‘prob­lem’ ”

  2. Rick Beckman Avatar

    Gen­e­sis 2:4 — “These are the gen­er­a­tions of the heav­ens and of the earth…” Through to verse 7, we have a sum­ma­riza­tion of Gen­e­sis 1, final­iz­ing with the com­ple­tion of man.

    Gen­e­sis 2:8 — “And the Lord God plant­ed a gar­den east­ward in Eden…” The remain­der of the chap­ter focus­es on this gar­den, what God put there, etc.

    No addi­tion to the text nec­es­sary. It says what it says.

  3. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    But where does it say that this is a sum­ma­riza­tion of Gen­e­sis 1?

    And regard­ing “The ani­mals of the Gar­den (v.19)”, that’s not what v.19 says.

    A lit­er­al read­ing does not yield rec­on­cil­able accounts. Only your inter­pre­ta­tion impos­es a reconciliation.

  4. Rick Beckman Avatar

    Where does it say that it isn’t a sum­ma­riza­tion? The pos­si­bil­i­ty that it is a sum­ma­riza­tion is enough to log­i­cal­ly con­clude that the text does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly have to be contradictory.

    That the pos­si­bil­i­ty exists is enough; whether one accepts the pos­si­ble expla­na­tions is up to the individual.

    For instance:

    And Satan stood up against Israel, and pro­voked David to num­ber Israel. 1 Chron­i­cles 21:1

    And again the anger of the LORD was kin­dled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, num­ber Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1

    Seem­ing­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry accounts of the same event. Did God or did Satan cause the census?

    To one eager to doubt the word of God, no rec­on­cil­i­a­tion exists because they are unwill­ing to obey the Lord and “com­pare spir­i­tu­al things with spiritual.”

    Satan and God may have had the same idea, with dif­fer­ing motives.

    God may have used Satan directly.

    That even those two pos­si­bil­i­ties exist means that the dif­fer­ings in the text aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly a full-stop error.

    Bob went to the store where he bought peanuts, milk, and juice. He returned home in his Taurus.

    On Thurs­day, Bob, Alice, and their daugh­ter Susan went to Kroger where they bought some gro­ceries. Susan drove them back to their home on Central.

    Two descrip­tions, very sim­i­lar to many Bible “con­tra­dic­tions,” but they are not con­tra­dic­to­ry. Rather, they com­pli­ment one anoth­er. Such is the nature of many scrip­tures that are far too quick­ly rejected.

  5. Rick Avatar

    Where does it say that it isn’t a sum­ma­riza­tion? The pos­si­bil­i­ty that it is a sum­ma­riza­tion is enough to log­i­cal­ly con­clude that the text does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly have to be contradictory.

    That the pos­si­bil­i­ty exists is enough; whether one accepts the pos­si­ble expla­na­tions is up to the individual.

    For instance:

    And Satan stood up against Israel, and pro­voked David to num­ber Israel. 1 Chron­i­cles 21:1

    And again the anger of the LORD was kin­dled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, num­ber Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1

    Seem­ing­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry accounts of the same event. Did God or did Satan cause the census?

    To one eager to doubt the word of God, no rec­on­cil­i­a­tion exists because they are unwill­ing to obey the Lord and “com­pare spir­i­tu­al things with spiritual.”

    Satan and God may have had the same idea, with dif­fer­ing motives.

    God may have used Satan directly.

    That even those two pos­si­bil­i­ties exist means that the dif­fer­ings in the text aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly a full-stop error.

    Bob went to the store where he bought peanuts, milk, and juice. He returned home in his Taurus.

    On Thurs­day, Bob, Alice, and their daugh­ter Susan went to Kroger where they bought some gro­ceries. Susan drove them back to their home on Central.

    Two descrip­tions, very sim­i­lar to many Bible “con­tra­dic­tions,” but they are not con­tra­dic­to­ry. Rather, they com­pli­ment one anoth­er. Such is the nature of many scrip­tures that are far too quick­ly rejected.

  6. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    So your world­view is built on “pos­si­bil­i­ties”.

    Your inerrant Bible is only inerrant because you choose to believe in “pos­si­bil­i­ties” that are not sup­port­ed in the text.

    In your going to the store exam­ple, there is noth­ing in the two accounts that con­tra­dict each oth­er. This is not the case in the pas­sages you are explicating.

  7. Rick Beckman Avatar

    Every world view is built on “pos­si­bil­i­ties.”

    Gen­e­sis 1 and 2 seem very plain to me. I read them, and I can tell the changes in thought between 1 & 2… It’s obvi­ous to me. I did­n’t have to look up some cook­ie-cut­ter defense or any­thing else.

    How­ev­er, and though it seems like a cop-out to many, spir­i­tu­al things are spir­i­tu­al­ly dis­cerned (i.e., the sim­ple things of the word only con­found those who think they know bet­ter). God promis­es the Holy Spir­it as a teacher to those who would believe; with the Author of the Book guid­ing one­self, it’s that much hard­er to get lost with­in its pages.

    It is because of that there are things like “The Skep­tics Bible” full of inde­fen­si­ble attacks on the Bible. Lost peo­ple are inca­pable of grasp­ing its meaning.

  8. Rick Avatar

    Every world view is built on “pos­si­bil­i­ties.”

    Gen­e­sis 1 and 2 seem very plain to me. I read them, and I can tell the changes in thought between 1 & 2… It’s obvi­ous to me. I did­n’t have to look up some cook­ie-cut­ter defense or any­thing else.

    How­ev­er, and though it seems like a cop-out to many, spir­i­tu­al things are spir­i­tu­al­ly dis­cerned (i.e., the sim­ple things of the word only con­found those who think they know bet­ter). God promis­es the Holy Spir­it as a teacher to those who would believe; with the Author of the Book guid­ing one­self, it’s that much hard­er to get lost with­in its pages.

    It is because of that there are things like “The Skep­tics Bible” full of inde­fen­si­ble attacks on the Bible. Lost peo­ple are inca­pable of grasp­ing its meaning.

  9. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    “Every world view is built on ‘pos­si­bil­i­ties.’ ”

    Very true. Nice to see you acknowl­edge that. One would nev­er know read­ing your blog that you under­stand that there are “pos­si­bil­i­ties”.

    It is great that you believe you have found “truth”, but the admis­sion of “pos­si­bil­i­ties” must lead to an acknowl­ege­ment that oth­ers may find equal­ly valid “truths” that work for them.

    “I read them, and I can tell the changes in thought between 1 & 2… It’s obvi­ous to me.”

    That does­n’t give it any more legit­i­ma­cy than dif­fer­ent ways that oth­ers may read it. How you read it is depen­dent on who you are psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly, etc. and where you are on the spir­i­tu­al road. It is your truth, it is not THE truth.

  10. Rick Beckman Avatar

    No, I don’t acknowl­edge that any oth­er world view is prop­er or truth­ful. How­ev­er, to those who believe them, they are built upon pos­si­bil­i­ties for them.

    I accept the word of God, not because it is pos­si­bly the word of God, but because it is. To an out­side, my views are “pos­si­bil­i­ties” (or impos­si­bil­i­ties, to some).

    How­ev­er, the very nature of the word of God and who God is Him­self show that even the best sci­ence can­not prove His exis­tence or His actions.

    Now, that isn’t to say the Bible isn’t right. It spoke of using run­ning water to wash hands, life depend­ing on blood, the Earth being sus­pend­ed on noth­ing, the ocean cur­rents, and much more all long before sci­ence ever caught up.

    But belief, sal­va­tion, and stand­ing firm in an absolute truth does­n’t require proof. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. Sec­u­lar sci­ence will nev­er accept the Bible’s view of cre­ation because of their rejec­tion of any­thing sci­ence can­not prove, the mirac­u­lous. By def­i­n­i­tion, the mirac­u­lous lies out­side sci­ence. So why expect them to reach the con­clu­sion that God already told us when they are doing all they can to con­fine things to the physical.

    Per­haps that is why God told us He created.

  11. Rick Avatar

    No, I don’t acknowl­edge that any oth­er world view is prop­er or truth­ful. How­ev­er, to those who believe them, they are built upon pos­si­bil­i­ties for them.

    I accept the word of God, not because it is pos­si­bly the word of God, but because it is. To an out­side, my views are “pos­si­bil­i­ties” (or impos­si­bil­i­ties, to some).

    How­ev­er, the very nature of the word of God and who God is Him­self show that even the best sci­ence can­not prove His exis­tence or His actions.

    Now, that isn’t to say the Bible isn’t right. It spoke of using run­ning water to wash hands, life depend­ing on blood, the Earth being sus­pend­ed on noth­ing, the ocean cur­rents, and much more all long before sci­ence ever caught up.

    But belief, sal­va­tion, and stand­ing firm in an absolute truth does­n’t require proof. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. Sec­u­lar sci­ence will nev­er accept the Bible’s view of cre­ation because of their rejec­tion of any­thing sci­ence can­not prove, the mirac­u­lous. By def­i­n­i­tion, the mirac­u­lous lies out­side sci­ence. So why expect them to reach the con­clu­sion that God already told us when they are doing all they can to con­fine things to the physical.

    Per­haps that is why God told us He created.

  12. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    “How­ev­er, the very nature of the word of God and who God is Him­self show that even the best sci­ence can­not prove His exis­tence or His actions.”

    Because there is no test. Reli­gion is not sci­ence, sci­ence is not reli­gion. They approach the world with com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent methodologies.

    “Now, that isn’t to say the Bible isn’t right. It spoke of using run­ning water to wash hands, life depend­ing on blood, the Earth being sus­pend­ed on noth­ing, the ocean cur­rents, and much more all long before sci­ence ever caught up.”

    I believe there are many instances in his­to­ry of writ­ers being out in front of sci­ence. Sci­ence has often lagged behind the brighter minds due to the drag of the Bible.

    You are real­ly focused in all the sci­ence reject­ing God stuff. I’m not sure why. You seem to under­stand that God is not sub­ject to sci­en­tif­ic enquiry (because God is not testable), yet your “tone” seems very crit­i­cal of sci­ence for this “rejec­tion”.

    Am I mis­read­ing you?

    I would point out that there is lit­er­al­ly moun­tains of sci­ence that is not found in the Bible, but that few, if any, dispute.

  13. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    Now read­ing my post, I wish I could edit.

    I over­state the “Sci­ence has often lagged behind the brighter minds due to the drag of the Bible.”

    I would phrase it “…fre­quent­ly due to the drag of the Bible.”

  14. Rick Beckman Avatar

    Because there is no test. Reli­gion is not sci­ence, sci­ence is not reli­gion. They approach the world with com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent methodologies.

    The Chris­tian’s Method­ol­o­gy: “Accept God at His Word. Every­one else will catch up eventually.”
    The Evolutionist’s/Athiest’s/Secularist’s Method­ol­o­gy: “Sin­ful man study­ing a cursed world using only half the pic­ture, ‘that which can be seen.’ ”

    Am I mis­read­ing you?

    Well, let me put it this way. The sci­en­tif­ic method does not take into account the untestable, the unver­i­fi­able, etc. That’s fine. It’s great that the sci­ence behind my asth­ma med­i­cine, my car’s engine, and the micro­proces­sors of my com­put­er is built upon ver­i­fi­able knowl­edge. Sci­ence is a great thing.

    But because sci­ence rejects mir­a­cles, I don’t expect it to ever (at least in my life­time) point to a mirac­u­lous Cre­ation or to Adam & Eve as I know them. It relies on the unver­i­fi­able, the mirac­u­lous… faith.

    I would point out that there is lit­er­al­ly moun­tains of sci­ence that is not found in the Bible, but that few, if any, dispute.

    And there are hun­dreds of mir­a­cles that have tak­en place through­out his­to­ry that sci­ence will nev­er be found in the sci­ence text books (save for the mir­a­cle of life, even if the ori­gins are mistaken).

    What many fail to remem­ber is that not only does the word of God present a per­fect pic­ture of God, but nature serves as a form of rev­e­la­tion itself, accord­ing to Romans 1. It points to the God­head. It tes­ti­fies that He is. To study nature and simul­ta­ne­ous­ly reject God is to stum­ble over the sim­plest evi­dence He has giv­en us–the world. I know you don’t reject that there is a god (which is great!), but many do. And they blame their unbe­lief on the biggest sign they have. In that regard, sci­ence is not enlight­en­ing; it is blind­ing. Progress means noth­ing if the cost is even one soul.

    …fre­quent­ly due to the drag of the Bible.

    I can think of no sci­en­tif­ic fact (not the­o­ry or hypoth­e­sis) which runs con­trary to the word of God. So if the Bible has been blamed, it is due to a mis­un­der­stand­ing or a tra­di­tion­al belief and not to what the Bible has actu­al­ly said.

  15. Rick Avatar

    Because there is no test. Reli­gion is not sci­ence, sci­ence is not reli­gion. They approach the world with com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent methodologies.

    The Chris­tian’s Method­ol­o­gy: “Accept God at His Word. Every­one else will catch up eventually.”
    The Evolutionist’s/Athiest’s/Secularist’s Method­ol­o­gy: “Sin­ful man study­ing a cursed world using only half the pic­ture, ‘that which can be seen.’ ”

    Am I mis­read­ing you?

    Well, let me put it this way. The sci­en­tif­ic method does not take into account the untestable, the unver­i­fi­able, etc. That’s fine. It’s great that the sci­ence behind my asth­ma med­i­cine, my car’s engine, and the micro­proces­sors of my com­put­er is built upon ver­i­fi­able knowl­edge. Sci­ence is a great thing.

    But because sci­ence rejects mir­a­cles, I don’t expect it to ever (at least in my life­time) point to a mirac­u­lous Cre­ation or to Adam & Eve as I know them. It relies on the unver­i­fi­able, the mirac­u­lous… faith.

    I would point out that there is lit­er­al­ly moun­tains of sci­ence that is not found in the Bible, but that few, if any, dispute.

    And there are hun­dreds of mir­a­cles that have tak­en place through­out his­to­ry that sci­ence will nev­er be found in the sci­ence text books (save for the mir­a­cle of life, even if the ori­gins are mistaken).

    What many fail to remem­ber is that not only does the word of God present a per­fect pic­ture of God, but nature serves as a form of rev­e­la­tion itself, accord­ing to Romans 1. It points to the God­head. It tes­ti­fies that He is. To study nature and simul­ta­ne­ous­ly reject God is to stum­ble over the sim­plest evi­dence He has giv­en us–the world. I know you don’t reject that there is a god (which is great!), but many do. And they blame their unbe­lief on the biggest sign they have. In that regard, sci­ence is not enlight­en­ing; it is blind­ing. Progress means noth­ing if the cost is even one soul.

    …fre­quent­ly due to the drag of the Bible.

    I can think of no sci­en­tif­ic fact (not the­o­ry or hypoth­e­sis) which runs con­trary to the word of God. So if the Bible has been blamed, it is due to a mis­un­der­stand­ing or a tra­di­tion­al belief and not to what the Bible has actu­al­ly said.

  16. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    The Evolutionist’s/Athiest’s/Secularist’s Method­ol­o­gy: “Sin­ful man study­ing a cursed world using only half the pic­ture, ‘that which can be seen.’ ”

    What does this mean? Is it pos­si­ble for a evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist to be a Chris­t­ian? Or should that be “Is it pos­si­ble for a Chris­t­ian to be an evo­lu­tion­arly biologist.”

  17. Rick Beckman Avatar

    What does that mean? Well, it is of course from the per­spec­tive of one who believes in a lit­er­al Genesis/John 1 account of Cre­ation. I don’t find it sur­pris­ing for those who choose to ignore the state­ments of the Bible to come to wrong con­clu­sions on their own. This is so for a num­ber of rea­sons… The heart is deceit­ful above all, the Earth is cursed and does not reflect the orig­i­nal Cre­ation, Satan and his min­ions are con­stant­ly at work to deceive and cast doubt upon the word of God, and so on. Left alone, with­out the abid­ing pres­ence and guid­ance of the Holy Spir­it and the teach­ings of the word of God, the truth will always be out of reach.

    Is it pos­si­ble for a Chris­t­ian to be an evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist? I’m going to say yes, but with a caveat. To do so would require the Chris­t­ian to dis­be­lieve not only Gen­e­sis, but also the teach­ings of Jesus Christ Him­self about God cre­at­ing Adam and Eve direct­ly. How­ev­er, at this point, it should be not­ed that faith cometh by hear­ing and hear­ing by the word of God. If one can will­ful­ly choose to deny the word of God, one is will­ful­ly choos­ing not to exer­cise faith. And since we are saved by grace through faith, they ought to be espe­cial­ly encour­aged to “work out their sal­va­tion with fear and trem­bling” and to “make their call­ing and elec­tion sure.”

    Is it pos­si­ble for an evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist to be a Chris­t­ian? Well, any­one can be with a sim­ple exer­cis­ing of faith in Jesus Christ and accep­tance of the gospel. How­ev­er, I would hope that when the old man is passed away and that per­son­’s soul is reborn in a sin­less state, they would allow the Spir­it to lead them unto the truth of Genesis.

    While many many who pro­fess faith may try “to see God work­ing in the evo­lu­tion­ary process­es” or to have Him act as the pri­mor­dial cause of the first spark of life… Well, they may be see­ing a god there, but it cer­tain­ly isn’t the one who has man­i­fest Him­self in the word of God. And all coun­ter­feits have their source with Satan and their final­i­ty in the lake of fire.

  18. Rick Avatar

    What does that mean? Well, it is of course from the per­spec­tive of one who believes in a lit­er­al Genesis/John 1 account of Cre­ation. I don’t find it sur­pris­ing for those who choose to ignore the state­ments of the Bible to come to wrong con­clu­sions on their own. This is so for a num­ber of rea­sons… The heart is deceit­ful above all, the Earth is cursed and does not reflect the orig­i­nal Cre­ation, Satan and his min­ions are con­stant­ly at work to deceive and cast doubt upon the word of God, and so on. Left alone, with­out the abid­ing pres­ence and guid­ance of the Holy Spir­it and the teach­ings of the word of God, the truth will always be out of reach.

    Is it pos­si­ble for a Chris­t­ian to be an evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist? I’m going to say yes, but with a caveat. To do so would require the Chris­t­ian to dis­be­lieve not only Gen­e­sis, but also the teach­ings of Jesus Christ Him­self about God cre­at­ing Adam and Eve direct­ly. How­ev­er, at this point, it should be not­ed that faith cometh by hear­ing and hear­ing by the word of God. If one can will­ful­ly choose to deny the word of God, one is will­ful­ly choos­ing not to exer­cise faith. And since we are saved by grace through faith, they ought to be espe­cial­ly encour­aged to “work out their sal­va­tion with fear and trem­bling” and to “make their call­ing and elec­tion sure.”

    Is it pos­si­ble for an evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist to be a Chris­t­ian? Well, any­one can be with a sim­ple exer­cis­ing of faith in Jesus Christ and accep­tance of the gospel. How­ev­er, I would hope that when the old man is passed away and that per­son­’s soul is reborn in a sin­less state, they would allow the Spir­it to lead them unto the truth of Genesis.

    While many many who pro­fess faith may try “to see God work­ing in the evo­lu­tion­ary process­es” or to have Him act as the pri­mor­dial cause of the first spark of life… Well, they may be see­ing a god there, but it cer­tain­ly isn’t the one who has man­i­fest Him­self in the word of God. And all coun­ter­feits have their source with Satan and their final­i­ty in the lake of fire.

  19. Senior Avatar
    Senior

    I’m going to say yes, but with a caveat.

    Sure sounds like a no to me.

    I would hope that when the old man is passed away and that person’s soul is reborn in a sin­less state, they would allow the Spir­it to lead them unto the truth of Genesis.

    But that sounds like a yes.

  20. Rick Beckman Avatar

    It’s only a yes if the “truth of Gen­e­sis” is evo­lu­tion, which no one could ever get from Gen­e­sis unless their means of inter­pre­ta­tion comes from a fal­li­ble man instead of from the word of God itself. Gen­e­sis was nev­er abused like it is today until church­es start­ed lift­ing the sup­posed knowl­edge of man above the rev­e­la­tion of God.

    Again, it is pos­si­ble to be saved and believe in evo­lu­tion. I don’t think it’s pos­si­ble to do it com­fort­ably unless the Spir­it actu­al­ly gives up on try­ing to teach you, nor do I think it can be done right­ly. What­so­ev­er is not of faith is sin, and to sup­plant the cre­ation by things which are not seen by an evo­lu­tion­ary process which we can appar­ent­ly still observe today destroys faith.

    It is pos­si­ble to be saved and lie, cheat and steal as well; it does­n’t make it right.

  21. Rick Avatar

    It’s only a yes if the “truth of Gen­e­sis” is evo­lu­tion, which no one could ever get from Gen­e­sis unless their means of inter­pre­ta­tion comes from a fal­li­ble man instead of from the word of God itself. Gen­e­sis was nev­er abused like it is today until church­es start­ed lift­ing the sup­posed knowl­edge of man above the rev­e­la­tion of God.

    Again, it is pos­si­ble to be saved and believe in evo­lu­tion. I don’t think it’s pos­si­ble to do it com­fort­ably unless the Spir­it actu­al­ly gives up on try­ing to teach you, nor do I think it can be done right­ly. What­so­ev­er is not of faith is sin, and to sup­plant the cre­ation by things which are not seen by an evo­lu­tion­ary process which we can appar­ent­ly still observe today destroys faith.

    It is pos­si­ble to be saved and lie, cheat and steal as well; it does­n’t make it right.

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman