Presuppositions and Biblical Creation Account

Presuppositions, even among Christian theologians, in multiple ways affect the possible interpretations of the Genesis creation record (as evidenced by the fact that I, because I believe Genesis to be literal history, call it the “Genesis record” while others would call it the “Genesis story” or “Genesis tale”).  These presuppositions affect how we view the original audience of Genesis also: if we believe they were less intelligent than ourselves, possibly little more than the stereotypical ‘caveman’, then there is a tendency to see the Genesis record as having been ‘dumbed down’ to accommodate their lesser mental capacity.  However, if we view mankind as perfectly created by God, then it is entirely possible that mankind was more intelligent in the past than we are now, due to the effect of sin on humanity for many long years. That is not to say that we aren’t technologically more advanced; it is to say that our thinking, along with every other aspect of our existence, has been damaged by the effects of sin.

Another issue affecting how we interpret the first chapters of Genesis is how we think the Genesis record came to exist in its current form. Some believe that the ‘stories’ were passed along verbally (because early man could not write) until someone (at a later date, with the ability to write) gathered them together into a group.

However, another possibility is that God created man with the ability to write from the beginning.  If we believe the Creation record, we believe God created mankind with the ability to communicate with Him in some form or fashion.  Why do we limit God’s creative expression by saying that He would create humans without the ability to write or, some would even say, speak? The only reason I can see for this limiting is that we place the opinion of secular scientists, who say man evolved from stupid brute animals that could not speak, read, or write, above God’s Word.  We allow the opinions of man to color our thinking about God and His character, and His abilities. The naturalistic theory of evolution has so saturated our worldview that we allow it to guide, not only our interpretation of the Bible, but even our view of who God’s character, attributes, and purposes.

Neither the fossil record, genetics, nor dating methods support evolution.  The fossil record does not contain the kind of evidence that would be found if evolution were true. Additional information would have to be added to our genetic make up for evolution to take place, this is not the case.  Long age dating methods rely on far too many assumptions for them to be accurate or trustworthy.

Both young earth creation and evolution are beliefs that must be held by faith. The theory of evolution is the theory of our beginnings without God’s involvement.  Creation says that God created everything. The unproven theories of man should not cause us to doubt the Word of God…ever!!

Views: 76

Comment

You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by Robert Driskell on December 4, 2018 at 8:12am

Gary,

Thank you for your comment.  You made a good point that should be remembered any time we investigate the world of nature around us.

Lou,

Thank you for your comments.  My article reflects my understanding of the biblical account of Creation.  I am aware that all Christians do not believe the same way I do.  God bless you.

Comment by Gary Murray on December 3, 2018 at 3:08pm

Just to remind our readers and our researchers... the current 'observable' state of this planet and its physical attributes has been drastically changed from its previous state prior to the flood.

While researching the observable physical traits of our earth is a worthwhile endeavor, it is paramount we understand that present observable nature shouldn't be used to compound a definite timeline, rather an inconclusive litmus of evidence to accommodate and support one's theory of a timeline.

Some will surely disagree, but the truth is the truth... Earth is different today than it was pre-flood. While it may be, what some call "Answers in Genesis dogma" doesn't make the statement wrong that present conditions and observation is not conclusive when determining historical physical conditions.

Its conundrums such as this, that we must turn our attention to the Biblical account and timeline given to us by the Lord, rather than using the reasoning and research of man to validate such claims.

Without the benefit of scripture, its just man's opinion...

Comment by Lou Hamby on December 2, 2018 at 9:31am

Dear Robert I enjoyed your comment above, however, there is more than one biblical view than Young Earth and Evolution out there?  There is also a YE view with respect to the actual creation event by a Godly via the scriptures, but also holding that the earth before the actual creation event and the universe was ancient or old.  Just saying. 

If your a believer, then only a guided process has a viable explanation and faith based perspective.  Anything through a non-guided natural process is questionable in various ways.  

Intelligent design advocates argue for a guided process!  While some are un bale or unwilling to espouse almighty God, they still no less support and accept that none of the observable evidences in nature are through a natural process..

There are YECS (most) that believe in a wwflood.  However there is also a movement that believes in a localized flood as well. Some believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth, while others a larger number.  Some well known YECs are on record of 25-50,000 years.

Morris originally supported 10-12,000 years, while is colleague supported 25,000.

You stated above:
"Long age dating methods rely on far too many assumptions for them to be accurate or trustworthy."

This is constantly being hammered here on this site, yet the reality there are numerous ways of dating that have nothing to do with regular C14 testing?  

Many of the Living evidences show themselves to be oder than 6,000 years old.  Just saying.

Lastly the arguments about kinds seems to be convoluted with a mish mash of information that is unsustainable or verifiable?

One of the big issues is DNA has a fixity to it and is responsible of all life.  Created and inculcated in every living creature by almighty God. The mechansim to explain new species of post Ark dispersion have no viable explanation for distribution or new species as there is no known process that explains KIDs and multiplicities of new species being bred by a single kind.  THis portrayal has been pointedly shown to be impossible given the understanding we do have of DNA? 

Given a 6,000 year view, a huge mega fauna explosion after the flood and subsequent extinction in 400 years seems untenable?   Even the ancient Egyptian murals and other cultures have clearly shown that certain mega fauna existed prior to the flood.  We have cut bones and other evidences that man lived with these before the flood?  

So your article is a totally one sided point of view that leaves all others out in the cold, but lacks evidences that question some of the nuance views you espouse?

There are other views that are held by faith believing Christians and understanding of the scirptures in homogenous context with the observable evidences of nature....

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2018   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service