In the (Third or Fourth) Beginning

It's been a while since I've done anything blogwise. Things got busy and my priorities shifted, but going this long without writing is driving me slightly mad, and I feel like I don't understand life as well when I'm not writing about it. One of the most obvious areas for this is my Bible reading, which I feel has been unproductive this last semester when it comes to personal reading time.

So, I'm starting over. I've abandoned my "Bible in a year" plan and instead am starting from the beginning and blogging through it. I plan to do Old Testament on weekdays and New Testament on weekends, with probably some random thought articles thrown in when they come to me. I'll generally try for at least a chapter each time, but I will do more or less depending on how much commentary I get out of a given passage.
 Lakeshore is starting its 21-day New Years fast today, so I thought this would be as good a time as any to begin. So, during this fast period, I'll also be looking at the devotional for the day that Lakeshore is providing.

Anyway, let's begin. I used to copy and paste the entire passage I was talking about, but I don't really see the point of it in retrospect. I'll give the references, so read along if you so desire.

[Gen 1:1]
     I spent two years at Christ for the Nations bible college. One of the classes I took there was "Creation Science," where I was thrown headfirst into the whole creationism vs. evolution argument. Until then I had never given it a great deal of thought, being satisfied with knowing "God exists, He started it, and He's in charge." CFNI taught from a literal seven-day creation, 10,000-year-old Earth standpoint, of which I had never made a point of seeing the arguments. I lean that direction now, though I'm still not 100% sure where I stand.
     What I did take away from those studies was the ways in which your stance on this is important on a deeper, theological level. Not as much on the literal 7 days thing, but on the literal truth of the events in Genesis, specifically Adam and Eve. If the curse that Adam and Eve brought upon the Earth was not the appearance of death (Which is the only conclusion under the Theistic Evolution standpoint, since stuff needs to be dying for evolution to be happening) then it brings doubt on the verse in Romans that says Adam was the one man who brought death into the world, and thus also brings doubt on the second clause of that sentence, which is that the gift of grace and righteousness will also reign through one. Likewise, if Adam and Eve never existed and were merely a metaphor, then we have trouble with the passages that link Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam, and we have to ask ourselves when the Bible switched to real people. So while I still don't have things figured out, I no longer consider this a non-issue like I used to.

     Every pastor I've ever sat under has done long, flowery talks at some point about "In the beginning God..." so I feel a little silly dwelling on that, but it is a powerful beginning. I'm majoring in mathematics, so I don't claim to have much to say in the realm of the natural sciences and the areas this chapter usually causes arguments about, but I do appreciate this set-up of the logical basis for the rest of the Bible. No matter how rigorous your system of logic or your scientific method is, at some point you have to establish your axioms, which are, by definition, statements you accept without proof. You cannot prove your axioms, because without them you don't have a method of proof. In Geometry these axioms are statements like "the whole is equal to the sum of its parts," "a line can be drawn between any two given points," and "if a = b and b = c, then a = c." In formal argumentative logic, they are statements like "A is not not-A" and the like.
     The problem with many arguments over Creationism and such subjects is that both parties are beginning with different axioms. If you reject the axiom that a point can be drawn between any two lines, you can't use line-drawing as a step in your proof, and are going to have a really hard time arguing with someone who sees two points and automatically sees a possible line. Likewise when people are arguing over whether or not the Grand Canyon was made by a massive worldwide flood or over billions of years of water trickle, the problem is that one side starts with God and one side does not. Both sides say they're just "going where the evidence leads," but the evidence can only lead you along a path your internal logic system allows.
     The Bible starts with "In the beginning, God..." and thus immediately establishes Him as an axiom to everything that will be stated in the rest of Scripture. You can read it and test it for internal consistency, but it does not bother explaining itself because God's existence is where you start from. He cannot be explained because He is outside of our system entirely. Man can no better prove God exists than my Sims can prove I exist. So while these creation details are important, I don't stress out over it because I accept God as my axiom and leave the fine print to scientists who are also starting with that axiom.

Dang, that was a lot longer than I anticipated. I suppose that will do for Genesis commentary for the day. Told you I may not make it through a chapter. I would keep going but that was a good introduction and I need to get ready for work.
It's good to be back.