Confused About Creation

There was a little boy who returned home from Sunday school very excited about the lesson on creation he was taught and he told his parents about all that he learned concerning Adam and Eve. A few days later, he came home from school apparently distressed about something. When his mother asked what was bothering him, he said, “Mom, my side hurts; I think I’m going to have a wife.”

I have heard a lot of jokes stemming from the Bible’s account of creation, but that one is probably the cutest. Life is an amazing thing. The Earth is an amazing place. The universe is an amazing space. God is an amazing Creator. From the billions of plants and animals to the billions of people and on up to the billions of the stars that are always out there, God has shown us His handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

Today, more than ever before, God can be seen in all of these things due to the increase of our technology. We can see the inner workings of plants, animals and people and see the heavens up close with our amazing microscopes and telescopes.

You would think that the amazing intricacies of life that we have discovered would convince even more people of the existence of a Grand Designer of life. Sadly this is not the case. Like the Bible says of the generations of old: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:22).

The biggest joke I have ever heard about the creation of life is the one that begins with “long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away there was a big explosion….” I guess the next time I want to build a house I can just stick some dynamite in a tree! But really, the only the thing sadder than an atheist denying the Bible’s account of creation is a self-confessing “Christian” that is “confused” about the first and second chapters of the great book of Genesis and its literal account of God’s creation of Adam and Eve.

Deny if they want, deny if you want – but God created Adam and Eve. I thoroughly believe that every person you see today came from one man and one woman.

I am not worried about the critics and naysayers because I am in good company. Moses believed in Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26,27); Ezra believed in Adam and Eve (1 Chronicles 1:1); Job believed in Adam and Eve (Job 31:33); Luke believed in Adam and Eve (Luke 3:38); Paul believed in Adam and Eve (1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13); Jude believed in Adam and Eve (Jude 14); and Jesus not only believed in Adam and Eve, He created them (Matthew 19:4,5; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17). You cannot believe in the second Adam without believing in the first (1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 5:14).

Do not be deceived or confused, when man strays away from God as our Creator we stray away from God as our Ruler and Savior. One God, one book, one man, one woman and one answer. That doesn’t sound too confusing to me.

Think about it.

Advertisements

15 comments

  1. This is very nice. At my school, our Christian Fellowship Group is a firmly creationist group (which is especially cool, because the brother hosting it is a creationist as well as a science teacher, but I digress). One day, we were discussing John 3:1-16 and we were digesting it verse by verse. We came to John 3:3 and while everyone was talking about the verse, it came to mind that no one can be born again unless we were first spiritually dead. Only the literal account of Genesis explains spiritual deadness. Many Christians may hold to theistic evolution, the Big Bang, etc., but while we were discussing it, it became clear to us that even in the verses unrelated to Adam and Eve, God’s literal, six-day creation of the Earth is quite clear. Thank you again for this blog post. :)

    1. Thanks for your comment and encouragement. Your point with John 3:3 is right on the money. Other scriptures to use also are Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:12,13 and especially 1 Timothy 5:6. Great observation. And you’re right, many people do hold to a “theistic evolution” but they cannot do so with the support of the scriptures. Only vain imaginations (Romans 1:21).

      A great website that defends the literal account of creation is http://www.apologeticspress.org

      I don’t know if you have ever checked them out but they have excellent resources. It is run by Christians who also have the “diplomas on the wall.” Maybe they will have something you can use in your future studies. The site is easy to navigate too.

      Again, thanks for your comment and take care.

      1. I haven’t seen them before now, as I usually stick with Answers In Genesis and alwaysbeready.org, but it looks like a really good resource from what I’m reading. :) Thanks!

  2. “I am not worried about the critics and naysayers because I am in good company. ”

    So your reasons for believing that that two characters in a book existed is that the other characters in the book also believed in those characters?

    1. Yeah, that is one major reason. And the “characters” (as you refer to them) were actually people. Look up your history my friend.

      You may not agree with what the Bible teaches but you cannot deny the existence of those you read about on its pages…many have tried and many have failed.

      Only one more reason why the origin of the Bible (and people too) can be trusted as God (2 Peter 1:20,21).

      Thanks for reading and commenting.

      1. Some existed. Others (like Jesus) have no contemporary evidence for their existence, in or out of the Bible.

        And believing something because someone else believes it is a horrible reason to believe anything, whether they existed or not.

      2. If you’re trying to take on the fact of whether or not Jesus was real you won’t get anywhere with it. Historically you cannot deny His existence as a human upon the Earth. Your decision (and mine) must be whether or not we believe that He was more than human and more than a “great teacher” (Matthew 16:13-16). I would encourage you to do a little more historical exploration about the person of Jesus of Nazareth. But at the end of the day your decision will have to be based on the historical scriptures and not the historical class book for a saving faith (John 21:25).

        You’re not only taking on the reliability of the NT books in your stance but also the OT. A collection of some 39 books filled with prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus (John 12:16; Luke 24:44).

        But back to the root cause of your doubt and original statement. You hold to an atheistic/evolutionist stand point (or am I wrong?) and you must get past not only the existence of life itself, but the variety of it. The procreation process of the natural world has within it steps that cannot be answered by evolution. Everything that needs a male and female to reproduce all “evolved” at the sametime??? You cannot plant an apple seed and get a greenbean. Accept this natural fact and then you can see the beauty of the Supernatural behind it. Scientists can only admire life. They cannot create it. They mess around with DNA that already exists. DNA that was built by a Someone…not a something.

        Again, thanks for commenting and take care.

  3. “Historically you cannot deny His existence as a human upon the Earth.”

    Actually, I can.

    I didn’t. But I could.

    All I said was that there was a lack of contemporary evidence for his existence. Which definitely calls into question his existence.

    “A collection of some 39 books filled with prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus”

    Which would be convincing if the OT were not available to the writers of the NT.

    If I’m your waiter, and you order a steak, and I bring you that steak, have I fulfilled prophecy?

    “DNA that was built by a Someone…not a something.”

    No it wasn’t.

    But feel free to provide evidence for such a claim.

    1. Oh. Okay? I guess??? So basically what your saying is the NT is just a “M. Night Shyamalan” production? Just people making something “look perfect” because they have secret “editing skills” due to thier access to the manuscript in front of them.

      Well, if that’s the case then reproduce it! You know, like “digitally enhancing it.” Or better yet take all the prophecies from Genesis to Malachi and write a “new story” about a person who fulfills all of them. No plagiarism from the original now. And remember, not only must the “make believe character” fulfill all the prophecies in his life (birth, life experiences, death, world leaders, etc.) but also the effects must be seen today (as is the case with a visible Christianity). Then see if you can get people, for no gain to themselves, to take this “character’s message” that you create to others. See if they will be willing to withstand the persecution like the followers of the original Gospel (Acts 5:34-40). Good luck…you’ll need it. After all, this should be no big deal according to your position. I know you’re not a scientist but maybe you can be an author.

      And to your raising the “lack of contemporaries” issue I’m not 100% sure I know what you mean by that, but I’ll try. If you’re saying what I think you are then where are the “contemporaries” of Socrates, Alexander the great, Abraham Lincoln or anyone else you read about in the history books. Where are the “contemporaries” of your grandfather on your mother’s side from 7 generations ago? Do you even know your lineage back that far? If not, does that mean your 5xgreat-grandfather did not even exist!? I seriously doubt anyone living today knew him. If I have the wrong understanding of your meaning of “contemporaries” please explain further what you meant by it because your point (if that’s your point) makes no sense. The simple point is history records the actual account of a person named Jesus (from Nazareth). To argue against something because you don’t have enough sources according to you (or you don’t like the sources) is silly. That argument can be used against anyone from the past. You may not like it, but not liking it and it not being real are two different things.

      Finally, once again we get back to the underlying reason of your original post. The chain of Christianity (including the reliability of the OT and NT letters and the literal account of creation) has solid links all the way through. The same cannot be said about the THEORY of evolution. There’s too many “missing links” to be logical to a thinking mind. But somehow educated atheists/evolutionists don’t mind placing their faith in them. That is what one must place in evolution you know! Unless you, unlike all the other atheistic predecessors, have found all those missing links.

      The best answer science can offer to the origin of life is spontaneous generation (unless you actually do believe in an immortal form of life???). Science can’t create life spontaneously can it? True scientists know that spontaneous generation is a fallacy, but that’s what you must hold to. Athestic/evolutionist scientists place all their trust in a chain that has absolutely nothing to anchor itself to.

      You still haven’t addressed the variety of life on the Earth. Do you really believe every living thing you see came from one mighty-morphin micro-organism? One that became all the animal and plant life you see! If so, where are the links in your fact based chain of evolution? Science is all about facts right? Do you really believe you can plant a sunflower seed and get an oak tree? Such a simple question. Such a simple observation. But such a complicated avoidance on your behalf to avoid seeing the forrest for all the trees! I think someone in this conversation truly is confused about creation and it isn’t me.

      You choose spontaneous generation (which goes against your very belief in science) and I choose intentional creation (which goes link in link with the chain found in the Bible).

      Keep grasping my friend – you may actually grab a hold of God one day (Acts 17:26-28).

      1. Wow. This response is just full of wrong. I’ll see what I can do to correct you.

        “Just people making something “look perfect” because they have secret “editing skills” due to thier access to the manuscript in front of them.”

        I don’t see anything about it that looks particularly perfect. I do remember a part where Jesus and his disciples, knowing that the messiah is prophesied to enter the city riding a donkey, go out in search of a donkey to ride. That’s not prophecy. That’s following directions.

        “Well, if that’s the case then reproduce it!”

        Already been done. Read Harry Potter. The prophecy from the earlier books is fulfilled in the last one.

        “See if they will be willing to withstand the persecution like the followers of the original Gospel”

        So because the hijackers during 9/11 died for what they believed in, we should believe that it’s true?

        A persons willingness to suffer or die for a belief in no way serves as evidence for the truth of that belief.

        “And to your raising the “lack of contemporaries” issue I’m not 100% sure I know what you mean by that”

        It means that no one wrote anything about Jesus during the time he was supposed to have been alive. Everything we have that is written about him is from at least ten years after he supposedly died, if he existed at all.

        If someone is doing miracles and claiming to be god, you would think that someone would write about it during the actual events, and not years or decades later.

        “The same cannot be said about the THEORY of evolution. There’s too many “missing links” to be logical to a thinking mind. ”

        You clearly have no idea what the word ‘theory’ means, or what ‘missing links’ are or how they pertain to evolution.

        “Do you really believe you can plant a sunflower seed and get an oak tree?”

        Nope. But I never claimed you could, and neither does science.

        You, on the other hand, would like me to believe a man can raise from the dead. With very little evidence to back it up.

        “Keep grasping my friend – you may actually grab a hold of God one day”

        I wouldn’t want to if it made me arrogant and ignorant of science, as you seem to be.

        Why do arrogance and ignorance always seem to go hand in hand?

      2. Let’s keep this as short as possible because your sidestepping is starting to get a little old.

        First off, you compare an actual documented living person from history ( http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=876 ) to a present day make-believe character written to make money and which has nothing in common with the authors of the original NT letters or their subject. Weak; very weak! You never did answer my question about your lineage to your grandfather of relatively recent history and the challenge still remains of sticking to the topic at hand and that’s for you to take the OT prophecies (not Harry Potter) and apply them to a single person like the NT writers did. After all, this task is no big deal since you already have the “manuscript” right? If a handful of “uneducated men” could accomplish this then why not you? And by the way, Jesus obeying a command of God does not violate a fulfillment of prophecy. The OT prophecies were written for the people to recognize, not so Jesus would know what to do. Again, weak; very weak! On one occasion Jesus specifically mentioned what prophesy said about the Messiah so John could see what he was missing (Matthew 11:1-6). You’re twisting the scriptures to make them say what you want like all other critics do.

        Secondly, Islam or any actions of a Muslim has nothing to do with my point; again you’re grasping for straws. My point is the people in the first century were willing to suffer because they knew the actual person (1 Corinthians 15:1-7). Materially speaking they had nothing to gain (again, unlike Harry Potter’s author who wrote based upon her own personal writings and not writings that were over a thousand years old like the writers of the NT did; and surely you don’t want to aruge with the Jews about that do you?).

        Third you can call a theory whatever you want but a theory is NOT A FACT THAT CAN BE TANGIBLY SHOWN. Is the following not a scientifically acceptable definition of theory? “Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” So where are the tests that have proven the fact of evolution??? I guess that’s why the definition says “most theories… and not all theories” because some theories such as evolution have no tests to prove it. There are only thoughts based on the presence of different species. Where are the facts?

        Lastly, please answer the following question: Do you believe in spontaneous generation or in an immortal microscopic form of life? It has to be one of the two. You know my proposition on the origin of life, now what’s yours? My point about the seed principle makes perfect sense IF a person believes all the life that now exists on Earth came from one micro-organism (a mighty-morphing micro-organism that turned into all the plant life and animal life you see today – – – literally a million different forms of life). Not to mention all their intricate reproduction requirements that are needed in the procreation process.

        At the end of the day if your final accusation is one that accuses me of saying that a person must have faith to believe in God (especially when it comes to salvation) then I guess I’m guilty as charged. But what I think you’re avoiding is the fact that you also are guilty of being dependent upon faith in your unfounded belief too. After all like I said, “The best answer science can offer to the origin of life is spontaneous generation (unless you actually do believe in an immortal form of life???). Science can’t create life spontaneously can it? True scientists know that spontaneous generation is a fallacy, but that’s what you must hold to. Atheistic/evolutionist scientists place all their trust in a chain that has absolutely nothing to anchor itself to.” No matter what you say it comes back to this and whichever you choose you don’t have the facts (evidence) to support it; only your “faith” and theories, that are more like glorified hypothesizes, that parade around in your mind as “scientific facts.” All the scientific tests for the “big bang” (your god for life) only lead to “big dudds.”

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a disagreement with science. Its junk science I don’t agree with. I don’t have a disagreement with scientists who observe things with book smarts and common sense. Its scientists (or ones who are ones but aren’t ones) who get so “book smart” that they can send a rocket to the moon but they don’t have enough common sense that sees the order in the universe that can only be created by a Designer that I disagree with.

  4. Very nice post. So very true! In the first chapter of Romans, Paul points to the fact that man has, is, and will worship the creation as oppossed to the Creator. Think of all the creations to worship: astronomy, genetics, physics, the Kardashians, self-actualization, sex, religion (God especially dislikes this one Isaiah 58), each other, and on-and-on it goes. I choose to love and celebrate the Creator and seek Him only. If we put Him first, all of His creation begins to speak to us. All of science and nature and everything else created takes on a new and magnificent life! We could “fix” our educational system if we could put the “Essence” back into it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s