What Else Could God Have Done To Make Himself Clear?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WithAllIAm

Guest
Okay, let's say for arguments sake that God is really trying to say that He created all things in six literal days in Genesis. To me, the whole account seems basic and will lead anyone to that conclusion, but obviously it cannot be that basic as here we are debating it. :sigh:

What else could God have done to show all people beyond any doubt that He meant that He created in six literal days? Please be specific and give examples and try your best not to generalise (e.g. "not use symbolic language, etc, etc).
 

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why, make everything look like it was created young. Making the universe 6,000 light-years big, or less, would be really helpful. It would also knock some (not all) gas out of those weaselly atheists who love to talk about how small we are in such a big universe, too.

I think it's far more meaningful to ask the opposite question. Instead of asking how God would make clear to us what He apparently told them, i.e. that the universe was created young within six days, you could ask how God would make clear to them what the universe appears to be like to us.

I.e., how would God make it clear to a bunch of nomads, wandering in the desert, who don't even know how to smelt metal, what a Big Bang is? How would He tell them that the universe is so many billion years old, and what would it mean to them? More importantly, what would that tell them about Him? I think were God to write them a scientific account, knowing their level of knowledge, they wouldn't understand any of it and so they wouldn't understand anything of God.

The most important purpose of the creation account was that it told the Israelites why God had created, and it told them what they could expect God to behave like in future: as their Warrior against chaos, as the God who was different from all the other gods of the nations around them, as a God who was orderly and precise in whatever He does, as a God who formed them with purpose and planning and care. That is, to me, what God meant to tell them, and to read anything else out of the passage is dangerous.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
WithAllIAm said:
Okay, let's say for arguments sake that God is really trying to say that He created all things in six literal days in Genesis. To me, the whole account seems basic and will lead anyone to that conclusion, but obviously it cannot be that basic as here we are debating it. :sigh:

What else could God have done to show all people beyond any doubt that He meant that He created in six literal days? Please be specific and give examples and try your best not to generalise (e.g. "not use symbolic language, etc, etc).


That's easy.

1. We would see no starlight from more than 6,000 light years away.
2. A solid firmament would overarch the earth.
3.The fossil record would show examples of many living species in all geological strata instead of showing a progression of appearance.
4.The genetic record of all species would show no more divergence than would be expected in 6,000 years given measured mutation rates.
5. Different created kinds would be easily distinguishable.
6. There would probably be written records of the date of appearance of new stars as they became visible and the appearance of new species within created kinds as they occurred.


In short, what God made would concur scientifically with a literal interpretation of Genesis instead of contradicting it at every point.
 
Upvote 0
P

Poke

Guest
WithAllIAm said:
Okay, let's say for arguments sake that God is really trying to say that He created all things in six literal days in Genesis. To me, the whole account seems basic and will lead anyone to that conclusion, but obviously it cannot be that basic as here we are debating it. :sigh:

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth..." Ex 20:11 Maybe if the Bible said, "For in 144 hours..." Nope, the Evolutionists here would just say the 144 is symbolic of perfection, and not literally meant (e.g. 144 is used several times in Revelation).

Some of the Evolutionists here openly blow off the Bible as the fruit of ignorant people. So, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says. I think that is the implication a couple of the replies you've already received in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Poke said:
Some of the Evolutionists here openly blow off the Bible as the fruit of ignorant people. So, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says. I think that is the implication a couple of the replies you've already received in this thread.

Sure it matters what the bible says. Because even though the writers were ignorant of many things they were also wise about many things. And it is those things they were wise about that makes the bible important and authoritative.


Do you really expect that Moses or Isaiah or Luke knew anything about the Maya of Central America or the Polynesians of Tahiti? Even that such places and peoples existed? Did any of them know about the existence of kangaroos or llamas or polar bears? Did they understand that lightning is a form or electricity? Had they measured the speed of light?


No--they were ignorant of all these things and more.

But the key question is "how much did this ignorance matter?" Did it keep them from knowing God? Did it keep them from walking with God? Did it keep them from receiving teaching from God on love and mercy and justice, on sin and salvation, on prayer and spirituality?

To this we can answer "No, it did not!"

And in these things we do not surpass them in knowledge or wisdom, no matter how much new information we have discovered about the physical world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
gluadys said:
Sure it matters what the bible says. Because even though the writers were ignorant of many things they were also wise about many things. And it is those things they were wise about that makes the bible important and authoritative.


Do you really expect that Moses or Isaiah or Luke knew anything about the Maya of Central America or the Polynesians of Tahiti? Even that such places and peoples existed? Did any of them know about the existence of kangaroos or llamas or polar bears? Did they understand that lightning is a form or electricity? Had they measured the speed of light?


No--they were ignorant of all these things and more.

But the key question is "how much did this ignorance matter?" Did it keep them from knowing God? Did it keep them from walking with God? Did it keep them from receiving teaching from God on love and mercy and justice, on sin and salvation, on prayer and spirituality?

To this we can answer "No, it did not!"

And in these things we do not surpass them in knowledge or wisdom, no matter how much new information we have discovered about the physical world.

The Rep Inhibitor says: said:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.


*grumble, grouse, grumble grouse*
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Poke said:
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth..." Ex 20:11 Maybe if the Bible said, "For in 144 hours..." Nope, the Evolutionists here would just say the 144 is symbolic of perfection, and not literally meant (e.g. 144 is used several times in Revelation).
'Day' is used both figuratively and literally, so is the word 'hour', Rev 3:10 I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world. Evening and morning are also used figuratively and literally. You do have a problem here with a God who has the heart of a poet and keeps trying to get us to see beyond our materialist surroundings.

However there is one phrase that is used in the bible that always describes a literal, continuous period of time, forty days and forty nights for the rain in the flood or the fasts of Moses and Jesus, or three days and three nights for Jonah or Jesus in the tomb.

Now this doesn't tell us the story is literal, but it does tell us that within the story it is a literal period of this many days. Jobs friends sat silently with him for seven literal days Job 2:13.

So if the book of Genesis wanted to say six literal and consecutive days it could have easily used the formula six days and six nights.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WithAllIAm said:
Okay, let's say for arguments sake that God is really trying to say that He created all things in six literal days in Genesis. To me, the whole account seems basic and will lead anyone to that conclusion, but obviously it cannot be that basic as here we are debating it. :sigh:

What else could God have done to show all people beyond any doubt that He meant that He created in six literal days? Please be specific and give examples and try your best not to generalise (e.g. "not use symbolic language, etc, etc).

I think, for one thing, the Bible could have stuck with cosmology and not said quite so much about God. If the account were more precise and used scientifically verifiable or falsifiable terms it would indicate, much more clearly, that it was written for scientists of the 19th century or later and not for the ancient Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0
P

Poke

Guest
gluadys said:
Sure it matters what the bible says. Because even though the writers were ignorant of many things they were also wise about many things. And it is those things they were wise about that makes the bible important and authoritative.

It's just too bad that you have to have all the answers before you open your Bible so that you may distinguish what is from ignorance and what is from wisdom. Hmmm, that makes the Bible worthless.

Do you really expect that Moses or Isaiah or Luke knew anything about the Maya of Central America or the Polynesians of Tahiti?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There's no hint of Evolution and great ages in the Bible. And, Moses was just as capable of writing about Evolution as he was Creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Poke said:
It's just too bad that you have to have all the answers before you open your Bible so that you may distinguish what is from ignorance and what is from wisdom. Hmmm, that makes the Bible worthless.

Hardly. The Bible is the infallible, authoritative source of sound doctrine. It is only when one tries to use it as a book of cosmology that one is going to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Poke said:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There's no hint of Evolution and great ages in the Bible. And, Moses was just as capable of writing about Evolution as he was Creation.

You're pitting two unlike things against each other. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The teachings of modern creationism (neo-creationism, as ChaosChristian calls it) are contrary to evolution, but only because they have been built up in opposition to it. Moses wrote about creation in the former sense. This is not creation as opposed to evolution. This is simply creation. Whether evolution has occurred is another question.
 
Upvote 0
W

WithAllIAm

Guest
Hello Assyrian:

How about actually saying he created the world in six days?

He did in Exodus 20:11 and before that in Genesis 1:31; 2:1-3.

Or not using the word 'day' in three or four different ways in the first two chapters of Genesis?

We use the word day in several ways today yet you seem to have no problem understanding what is meant by each application of the term; for example:

In my father's day they would often travel through the day and rest at night on their way to Peth from Sydney which would take them several days.

Notice that the term "day" was used in three different ways, yet you can still make sense of it. It is not mysterious or poetical, nor can one conclude that what I wrote was symbolic...

Hi WithAllIAm, welcome to the forum :wave:

Thanks. :)
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
WithAllIAm said:
Hello Assyrian:

He did in Exodus 20:11
You specified the question was about God trying to make a six day creation clear in Genesis, which is why I did not get into the Exodus quotes. However the thing with Exodus is God is not teaching about the creation here, it is about the Sabbath and the Hebrew working week, the creation is used as an illustration. Now when the creation is simply being used as an illustration it does not tell us whether the days are literal or not.

Look at the same command in Deuteronomy.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Instead of the six day creation as an illustration, we have a description of their liberation from slavery, given in the form of a metaphor, an anthropomorphism.

Look again at the two passages in Exodus
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Just like the mighty hand and an outstretched arm in Deuteronomy, God resting and being refreshed is another anthropomorphic metaphor describing God as though he were a weary labourer who is refreshed after a days rest. Exodus no more teaches a literal six day creation, than Deuteronomy teaches us that God has literal arms and hands and used them to free the Israelites.

and before that in Genesis 1:31; 2:1-3.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

Sorry, no comment about making the world in six days here. Your problem is even worse here when God's seventh day rest is interpreted non literally by both Jesus (John 5:17), and the writer of Hebrews (chapters 3&4).

We use the word day in several ways today yet you seem to have no problem understanding what is meant by each application of the term; for example:

In my father's day they would often travel through the day and rest at night on their way to Peth from Sydney which would take them several days.

Notice that the term "day" was used in three different ways, yet you can still make sense of it. It is not mysterious or poetical, nor can one conclude that what I wrote was symbolic...


Thanks. :)
In your illustration it is clear, yet the meaning of the days in Genesis has been raising questions for thousands of years. Unlike your father's contemporaries, there are no humans to give a scale to the days, only God. Nor for the first few days is there even a sun. If these are days whose meaning does not depend on the motion of the sun, then they don't really sound like normal literal days.

Of the other uses of the word day, only the very first Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night is clear. How long was the day in Gen 2:17? 12 hours, 24 hours or a thousand years? Generally the early church interpreted it as a thousand years, because Adam a lot longer than 24 hours after eating the fruit. How long was the day in Gen 2:4 These are 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. I have heard people argue for 24 hours, 3 days, 6 days or 6 eons.


The problem remains, if God wanted to make it clear that creation days were literal, it would have been clearer if he hadn't been so loose and poetic in his use of the word 'day' in those first chapters.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I was almost finished a response to shernren when my Internet Explorer went spaz when I tried to open up a pdf (stupid Acrobat Reader 7.08!!) and lost the entire data. :(

Hence, I am rather annoyed and don't feel like typing all that out again at the moment. I'll reply later on in the night...

Oh brother! I feel your pain! [hug] ... that's why I say we should all use Mozilla Firefox. :) I anticipate your response, when you find the patience and motivation to retype it. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WithAllIAm said:
Thanks for the answers thus far.

I was almost finished a response to shernren when my Internet Explorer went spaz when I tried to open up a pdf (stupid Acrobat Reader 7.08!!) and lost the entire data. :(

Hence, I am rather annoyed and don't feel like typing all that out again at the moment. I'll reply later on in the night...

For particularly in-depth responses, I often use TextEdit (or some other text editor) to work through it. It gives me more space than the little boxes CF provides in "Reply to Topic" and it's far more stable.
 
Upvote 0
WithAllIAm said:
We use the word day in several ways today yet you seem to have no problem understanding what is meant by each application of the term;

Liberals usually believe that there are two creation accounts and that the second one is written by a different person. Given that case, there is only one usage of the word "day" in the first Creation account. So, their argument that "day" is used in more than one way doesn't stand up to their own view of the Bible -- aside from their argument being an attempt to obfuscate in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Poke said:
Liberals usually believe that there are two creation accounts and that the second one is written by a different person. Given that case, there is only one usage of the word "day" in the first Creation account. So, their argument that "day" is used in more than one way doesn't stand up to their own view of the Bible -- aside from their argument being an attempt to obfuscate in the first place.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

same word-yom, is used in Gen 1:5 to label the 'daylight hours' and to label a 24 hrs day. two different uses, same verse.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
shernren said:
Why, make everything look like it was created young. Making the universe 6,000 light-years big, or less, would be really helpful. It would also knock some (not all) gas out of those weaselly atheists who love to talk about how small we are in such a big universe, too.
Up until recent history that has never been an issue, the appearance of age.
shernren said:
I think it's far more meaningful to ask the opposite question. Instead of asking how God would make clear to us what He apparently told them, i.e. that the universe was created young within six days, you could ask how God would make clear to them what the universe appears to be like to us.

I.e., how would God make it clear to a bunch of nomads, wandering in the desert, who don't even know how to smelt metal, what a Big Bang is? How would He tell them that the universe is so many billion years old, and what would it mean to them? More importantly, what would that tell them about Him? I think were God to write them a scientific account, knowing their level of knowledge, they wouldn't understand any of it and so they wouldn't understand anything of God.
If God used billions of years and that concept was difficult to understand (which I don't think it would) he could have just as easily have said, "And there was the first age" instead of "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

All of us, yesterday and today, could understand its meaning and not be confused.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
gluadys said:
Do you really expect that Moses or Isaiah or Luke knew anything about the Maya of Central America or the Polynesians of Tahiti? Even that such places and peoples existed? Did any of them know about the existence of kangaroos or llamas or polar bears? Did they understand that lightning is a form or electricity? Had they measured the speed of light?

No--they were ignorant of all these things and more.
None of those things were important and so they were not mentioned. What was mentioned is important and that is what we should be focusing on. We have no idea of what they were ignorant of or not.
glaudys said:
But the key question is "how much did this ignorance matter?" Did it keep them from knowing God? Did it keep them from walking with God? Did it keep them from receiving teaching from God on love and mercy and justice, on sin and salvation, on prayer and spirituality?

To this we can answer "No, it did not!"
That's right! It didn't keep them from teaching what they did know. What did they teach? God's Word! Everything God told Moses to write, everything, is what was truly important. That's the whole point.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.