Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Wayne in Maine]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

[“Scientific Creationists” such as Ken Ham try to prove scientifically that the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are scientifically accurate, including the dates when these were supposed to occur. They do this to validate the scientific accuracy and thus the veracity of the “literal” Bible and thus of Jesus and their “Gospel” (which doesn’t take the words of Jesus literally).

I appreciate the perspective of spreading the Good News of the Kingdom by first letting God’s historic evidence of the resurrection establish the veracity of the Word of God made Flesh, then letting the theological dilemmas of the Old Testament be sorted out as the new follower of Jesus grows.

Historical evidence? what evidence? There is the Bible obviously, there were two or three Roman writers who mentioned Jesus, a Jewish writer, and then nothing other then a group of crazy people who claimed the God who was killed, also rose from the grave. How is this actually historical evidence?

There is no proof of the resurrection actually occurring. I clearly believe it did, but the proof of a global flood is stronger from historical standpoint.

No argument can be made from science that the resurrection of Jesus occurred, and I would never attempt to make any attempt to use science to prove any miracle (except perhaps modern claims of miraculous healing, or speaking in unknown languages). Historically it is implausible to deny that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. I won't go over those arguments.

You cannot convince anyone trained in science (who is not committed to "scientific creationism") especially any trained geologist that there was a global flood anywhere near 4000 years ago. Likewise, while there are historical accounts of massive floods throughout the world (and geological evidence) there is no historical consistency to these records corresponding to a single event on a single date somewhere around 4000 years ago.

The resurrection is a plausible historic event and is a good basis for approaching Jesus in faith. A worldwide flood is not convincing enough as a basis to call someone to surrender their life and follow after Jesus. Jesus Himself stated that His resurrection was the sign of His authenticity, he did not cite the flood as authenticating His teachings.

[Bootstrap]

I like this article, written by a Christian scientist to open the doors for talking to other scientists about Jesus:

Is Jesus Greater Than Anti-Evolutionism?

Nothing there is a science based, that argument is emotional, perhaps slightly logical based but not scientific.

I disagree - and this becomes particularly clear when you read or listen more of what he has written. He is a research scientist who is believes in a literal reading of Genesis and also believes in science. But he is also clear about the sphere in which each works. Science does not prove the resurrection. Science does not prove God. Neither does accounting - that's not what these fields of study do.

This is specifically against anti-evolution and really has nothing to do with witnessing about Jesus from science.

I think this is specifically about how he, as a working scientist, witnesses about Jesus to other scientists and people who trust science. Not by making the claim that science proves Jesus rose from the dead. Science is silent on many of the most important questions of what it means to be human, science cannot prove God or tell us how to serve Him.

The Bible speaks to things that science cannot:

Here, the gospel’s prophetic voice in science is most clear. Our world sees
science as the most trusted source of truth. In this scientific world, scientific
arguments are esteemed above all others. But what can science say about the
Resurrection? What can science say about God? What can science say of the
darkness in this world? What can science say of our destiny? No experiment
can guide us here. Science is silent on these most important questions. All
my scientific training is meaningless. All my scientific arguments are
shifting. All my scientific evidence is fading. All my wise and persuasive
words are inadequate. Thus, at the cross, my idolatry of science comes to die.
As science fades away, I am left with an effortless, proper confidence. I am
brought back to the same gospel that my mother shared with me as a toddler.
I see Jesus, and He silences my doubt.

I liked this though.

Me too.

[Ken]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

[“Scientific Creationists” such as Ken Ham try to prove scientifically that the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are scientifically accurate, including the dates when these were supposed to occur. They do this to validate the scientific accuracy and thus the veracity of the “literal” Bible and thus of Jesus and their “Gospel” (which doesn’t take the words of Jesus literally).

I appreciate the perspective of spreading the Good News of the Kingdom by first letting God’s historic evidence of the resurrection establish the veracity of the Word of God made Flesh, then letting the theological dilemmas of the Old Testament be sorted out as the new follower of Jesus grows.

Historical evidence? what evidence? There is the Bible obviously, there were two or three Roman writers who mentioned Jesus, a Jewish writer, and then nothing other then a group of crazy people who claimed the God who was killed, also rose from the grave. How is this actually historical evidence?

There is no proof of the resurrection actually occurring. I clearly believe it did, but the proof of a global flood is stronger from historical standpoint.

No argument can be made from science that the resurrection of Jesus occurred, and I would never attempt to make any attempt to use science to prove any miracle (except perhaps modern claims of miraculous healing, or speaking in unknown languages). Historically it is implausible to deny that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. I won't go over those arguments.

You cannot convince anyone trained in science (who is not committed to "scientific creationism") especially any trained geologist that there was a global flood anywhere near 4000 years ago. Likewise, while there are historical accounts of massive floods throughout the world (and geological evidence) there is no historical consistency to these records corresponding to a single event on a single date somewhere around 4000 years ago.

The resurrection is a plausible historic event and is a good basis for approaching Jesus in faith. A worldwide flood is not convincing enough as a basis to call someone to surrender their life and follow after Jesus. Jesus Himself stated that His resurrection was the sign of His authenticity, he did not cite the flood as authenticating His teachings.

That is my point. New Testament miracles associated with Jesus are plausible and believable. They are miraculous yes, that is what miracles are. But they don’t violate the laws of the known universe. There are lots of ways that water could be turned into wine. Or that loaves and fishes multiply. Even the resurrection. They are unexplained. But not scientifically impossible. Dead people are revived every day with defibrillator machines. We don’t have the technology to do it after 3 days. But there is no fundamental principal of science I am aware of that says it is impossible.

By contrast, much of the Genesis narrative is of an entirely different order. There are an estimated 300 billion stars in our galaxy and an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe. Did God just wave them all into existence 10,000 or so years ago according to the timeline written down by ancient Hebrew scholars? Or Noah’s flood. Did a vengeful God really double or triple the volume of water on the earth’s surface in order to wipe out all life on earth save for Noah and his family and the plants and animals he gathered up into a homemade wooden boat? And then make all that water vanish again? And there every species of plant and animal somehow made it back to their correct habitats across the vast planet? The same basic story is told in older ancient texts from other cultures such the Epic of Gilgamesh so it isn’t even a unique story. And every ancient culture on earth has some sort of origin story that tends to differ only in the details from that found in Genesis.

One can be a Christian and believe in the truth of Christ’s message as reflected in the New Testament without believing in a hyper-literalist interpretation of Genesis. That is exactly what a majority of Christians do believe. In fact, one can be a good Christian without ever once opening the Old Testament at all. Jesus referenced Old Testament Texts when speaking to a Jewish audience to whom they would be familiar. But I see no commandments from Jesus that one must study the details of every Old Testament text like a Talmudic scholar. I don’t think that is what Christianity is about. In fact, the Bible as we know it, that is found everywhere today, did not even exist in that form in Jesus’s time. It would have been composed of separate scrolls, copied by hand, stored in synagogues, and accessible only to priests and scholars, Not something accessible to a mass audience of ordinary people.

[Wayne in Maine]

The resurrection is a plausible historic event and is a good basis for approaching Jesus in faith. A worldwide flood is not convincing enough as a basis to call someone to surrender their life and follow after Jesus. Jesus Himself stated that His resurrection was the sign of His authenticity, he did not cite the flood as authenticating His teachings.

That is my point. New Testament miracles associated with Jesus are plausible and believable. They are miraculous yes, that is what miracles are. But they don’t violate the laws of the known universe. There are lots of ways that water could be turned into wine. Or that loaves and fishes multiply. Even the resurrection. They are unexplained. But not scientifically impossible. Dead people are revived every day with defibrillator machines. We don’t have the technology to do it after 3 days. But there is no fundamental principal of science I am aware of that says it is impossible.

I don't want anyone to think that I implied that the miracles documented in the New Testament have natural, scientific explanations. I believe they do violate natural laws - they are supernatural events unexplainable by any scientific inquiry. No unknown technology resurrected Jesus.

By contrast, much of the Genesis narrative is of an entirely different order. There are an estimated 300 billion stars in our galaxy and an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe. Did God just wave them all into existence 10,000 or so years ago according to the timeline written down by ancient Hebrew scholars? Or Noah’s flood. Did a vengeful God really double or triple the volume of water on the earth’s surface in order to wipe out all life on earth save for Noah and his family and the plants and animals he gathered up into a homemade wooden boat? And then make all that water vanish again? And there every species of plant and animal somehow made it back to their correct habitats across the vast planet? The same basic story is told in older ancient texts from other cultures such the Epic of Gilgamesh so it isn’t even a unique story. And every ancient culture on earth has some sort of origin story that tends to differ only in the details from that found in Genesis.

God could have done all of the above, I have no doubt. But the measurable evidence suggests that the Genesis cosmology and Noachian Flood are not precise descriptions of events as they occurred, though they do fit into ancient understandings of the natural and spiritual real at the time of their writing.

[Ken]

The resurrection is a plausible historic event and is a good basis for approaching Jesus in faith. A worldwide flood is not convincing enough as a basis to call someone to surrender their life and follow after Jesus. Jesus Himself stated that His resurrection was the sign of His authenticity, he did not cite the flood as authenticating His teachings.

That is my point. New Testament miracles associated with Jesus are plausible and believable. They are miraculous yes, that is what miracles are. But they don’t violate the laws of the known universe. There are lots of ways that water could be turned into wine. Or that loaves and fishes multiply. Even the resurrection. They are unexplained. But not scientifically impossible. Dead people are revived every day with defibrillator machines. We don’t have the technology to do it after 3 days. But there is no fundamental principal of science I am aware of that says it is impossible.

I don't want anyone to think that I implied that the miracles documented in the New Testament have natural, scientific explanations. I believe they do violate natural laws - they are supernatural events unexplainable by any scientific inquiry. No unknown technology resurrected Jesus.

By contrast, much of the Genesis narrative is of an entirely different order. There are an estimated 300 billion stars in our galaxy and an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe. Did God just wave them all into existence 10,000 or so years ago according to the timeline written down by ancient Hebrew scholars? Or Noah’s flood. Did a vengeful God really double or triple the volume of water on the earth’s surface in order to wipe out all life on earth save for Noah and his family and the plants and animals he gathered up into a homemade wooden boat? And then make all that water vanish again? And there every species of plant and animal somehow made it back to their correct habitats across the vast planet? The same basic story is told in older ancient texts from other cultures such the Epic of Gilgamesh so it isn’t even a unique story. And every ancient culture on earth has some sort of origin story that tends to differ only in the details from that found in Genesis.

God could have done all of the above, I have no doubt. But the measurable evidence suggests that the Genesis cosmology and Noachian Flood are not precise descriptions of events as they occurred, though they do fit into ancient understandings of the natural and spiritual real at the time of their writing.

I don’t think we disagree. I did not mean to imply that, for example, turning water into wine wasn’t a supernatural miracle. Or that Jesus used some secret technology that we haven’t yet invented. Or some David Copperfield-style slight of hand. I just don’t think those sorts of miracles necessary violate any fundamental laws of nature as we understand them. The replicator machines in the galley of the Starship Enterprise on the Star Trek series set in the 23rd Century can do the same thing. That is clearly science fiction. But people don’t think it is magic or scientifically impossible. Just that it is some future sci-fi technology that hasn’t yet been invented.

I don’t know HOW Jesus turned water into wine. Were some of the protons, neutrons, and electrons in water molecules re-arranged to form the tannins and other organic molecules contained in wine? (which is probably 90% water anyway). Or did he make the water disappear and be replaced by wine? I think it was a supernatural miracle. But it isn’t something that requires setting aside universal scientific laws to believe in. Walking on water is another example. Or healing the sick. Were those supernatural miracles? Sure. But did they violate the known natural laws of the universe? Not necessarily. People walk on water and heal the sick all of the time.

[Wade]

After Peter spent years with Jesus and walked on water look where it lead him:

1 Peter 3:20
[20]Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Was Peter the first fundamentalist? Or was Peter just following Christ in believing the flood as Christ did?

[Sudsy]

After Peter spent years with Jesus and walked on water look where it lead him:

1 Peter 3:20
[20]Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Was Peter the first fundamentalist? Or was Peter just following Christ in believing the flood as Christ did?

When people told the story of the flood covering the earth, why could this not be only that part of the world they lived in. They had no means of knowing what the whole earth was in that time. Why would God wipe out all mankind just because those who could hear Noah's preaching, ignored him ? Questions like that, along with what science has learned about the earth, I think still allows for a great flood. I don't think it requires belief in a global flood. YMMV.

[Soloist]

After Peter spent years with Jesus and walked on water look where it lead him:

1 Peter 3:20
[20]Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Was Peter the first fundamentalist? Or was Peter just following Christ in believing the flood as Christ did?

When people told the story of the flood covering the earth, why could this not be only that part of the world they lived in. They had no means of knowing what the whole earth was in that time. Why would God wipe out all mankind just because those who could hear Noah's preaching, ignored him ? Questions like that, along with what science has learned about the earth, I think still allows for a great flood. I don't think it requires belief in a global flood. YMMV.

God does not lie. Gen 6:17

Those who doubt the global flood also doubt that Noah brought 2 of each animal on as the dimensions seem impossible to make work.

If the Bible is wrote through man's view, what does all life mean? How would anyone of the time understand all life under heaven to mean?


Gen 7:19 "Over all the high mountains under the whole heaven"

Gen 7:20 15 cubits over the mountains.

Even if it was just a local flood, consider the mountains in the region. Now consider that... Mount Ararat is 16000~ feet tall... What would not be covered with a flood of that depth?

[JimFoxvog]

When people told the story of the flood covering the earth, why could this not be only that part of the world they lived in. They had no means of knowing what the whole earth was in that time. Why would God wipe out all mankind just because those who could hear Noah's preaching, ignored him ? Questions like that, along with what science has learned about the earth, I think still allows for a great flood. I don't think it requires belief in a global flood. YMMV.

But why would an ark be needed when just migration on land would be much simpler?

[Sudsy]

After Peter spent years with Jesus and walked on water look where it lead him:

1 Peter 3:20
[20]Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Was Peter the first fundamentalist? Or was Peter just following Christ in believing the flood as Christ did?

When people told the story of the flood covering the earth, why could this not be only that part of the world they lived in. They had no means of knowing what the whole earth was in that time. Why would God wipe out all mankind just because those who could hear Noah's preaching, ignored him ? Questions like that, along with what science has learned about the earth, I think still allows for a great flood. I don't think it requires belief in a global flood. YMMV.

God does not lie. Gen 6:17

Those who doubt the global flood also doubt that Noah brought 2 of each animal on as the dimensions seem impossible to make work.

If the Bible is wrote through man's view, what does all life mean? How would anyone of the time understand all life under heaven to mean?


Gen 7:19 "Over all the high mountains under the whole heaven"

Gen 7:20 15 cubits over the mountains.

Even if it was just a local flood, consider the mountains in the region. Now consider that... Mount Ararat is 16000~ feet tall... What would not be covered with a flood of that depth?

Those sorts of questions are addressed in various Internet links regarding the flood being local or global. Even Mount Ararat not being where the Ark came to rest. Personally, I don't get into the endless debates over the creation story so I shouldn't have posted an opinion that a more local flood is not an issue for me.

I don't believe being a Christian requires a literal belief in all that is written in the scriptures nor how any one group interprets it. I believe the Holy Spirit will give us what we need to know which is quite different from what we might like to know now. We see through a glass darkly on many subjects but what we really need to know comes through the Spirit's guidance.

And as Max ends - YMMV