Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Nym]

Why are people so afraid to think for themselves?

Why are we so afraid to reason with God?

If we take things literally, what took God six days to create in a moment flees from his face.

Why time?

It seems people would rather reason, and debate with people while all along avoiding the source, perhaps maybe the price to do so is to steep.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Why are people so afraid to think for themselves?

We do think for ourselves. That's why we don't buy into what the world teaches and says.

Why are we so afraid to reason with God?

Why are some so afraid to believe what He said?

It seems people would rather reason, and debate with people while all along avoiding the source, perhaps maybe the price to do so is to steep.

The issue of this thread is creation, not salvation.

 

[4x4toy]

Please note the question mark. It's not a trick question.

The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament. All major
tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in different ways, correct?

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the End from the Beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done .. Gen 1:14 Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times , days and years .. Days are numbered ..

Personal testimony is God give me a particular date once .. I had had two dreams in two nights . The first night I was in the presence of God (indescribable satisfaction) , the next night out of the presence of God and in the presence of a satanic being (indescribable horror) .. It was the biggest wake up call in my life .. The fear of being out of Gods presence from then on was almost more than I could bear , I began to question my salvation and was mentally tormented .. My constant thoughts were God how can I know and when will I ever know ? One day at work I was going through my new routine of torment when I heard a voice say "next year" "New Year" , So that was like April .. I even turned around to see who was there .. Meanwhile I was very motivated to be at every church service and my nose in the Word .. After a few months I was able to take control of my thoughts again and soon had forgot all about it and things were good .. But then events happened and I had called the sheriffs office and they sent a deputy about a matter who happened to be black and Christian .. We forgot all about the problem and we had church together .. We discussed the gifts of the Spirit and he invited me to his churches New Years service and to be baptized in the Holy Spirit .. So any way I kinda blew it off and my wife , kids and I were sitting in a Presbyterian church New Years eve .. I sat there and remembered I had accepted the deputies invite .. I said come on I told the man I'd be there so we left and found the all black church .. Any way I (a Baptist) was baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (evidence) .. A couple weeks later my son was showing me a globe with timelines and all of a sudden I remembered God telling me I'd know for sure New years .. As Jan 1 had dawned on Earth .. So in my mind God set a definite timeline and I have no reason to doubt dates and times in the Bible at all .. As far as different authors in the Bible take a look at Chuck Misslers short video "Sevens in the Bible" , remarkable .. Peace Bro

 

[Nym]

The issue of this thread is creation, not salvation.

Time does not have anything to do with creation?

 

[Look Up]

So, in another thread, there's an off-topic discussion and I'd like to move it here.

It saddens me how many Christians think so highly of Man and his science that they think that we know better than God. Some people seek to allegorize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and say that God was speaking figuratively and that He didn't really mean what He said in Genesis.

Okay, fine.

But you wanna tell me why God, in Exodus 20:9-11 would tell Moses straight upfront that He created the Earth and everything on it in 6 days?

Here's the text for reference (KJV):



God straight up says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".

God said this, to Moses, directly. He wasn't using allegory, He wasn't playing around, He said "Since I worked 6 days and rested the 7th, you're going to work 6 days and rest on the 7th also." (paraphrased).

So.... you either believe God or you don't.

If you're going to say that God created Life on Earth over millions of years, then that forces you to call Him a liar in Exodus 20:11. If you're going to say that God was telling the truth, that means Man is a liar.

I leave you with Paul's opinion on that:

Romans 3:4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

You have pointed out one of many ties (here, the Sabbath) between the primeval narratives in Genesis (chs. 1-11) and the rest of the Pentateuch; there are also many ties within the primeval narratives, such as between the creation/Adam and Flood/Noah narratives. The creation narratives form part of the introduction to the Pentateuch, for the God of Abraham is the God who created all tribes and people over the face of the whole earth (and all are fallen as Adam, for all die).

Perhaps closer to your point is Jesus' affirmation of the Gen. 2 creation narrative in the Master's argument against divorce in Matt. 19, or Paul's affirmation of Adam in Rom. 5 & 1 Cor. 15. Astonishingly (to me), I have seen argument from professing Christians (biologos website) suggesting some sort of exegetical wiggle room for NT passages such as these, but I am wary of pushing the creation of Adam into something like a "God put a soul into a pre-Adamic human-like race and called him Adam" explanation. Biologos at least seems to push too hard against Pauline Scripture inspiration and the accuracy and truth of Jesus' teaching on divorce while relying too much on evolution despite its major unanswered questions (like ridiculous mutation improbabilities).

Once one admits at least the probability of supernaturalist explanations for the origins of life and the material universe, certain hypotheses are admissible which are outside the purview of purely naturalistic explanations--and one might add that the naturalistic explanations in global terms often become anti-supernaturalistic.

Be that as it may, there are considerations suggesting a greater age to life on earth and the material universe than a few 24 hour days prior to when Adam probably was created according to the Bible (I mean Biblical chronology may not have been as precise as Ussher made it). Aside from the mere mention of the travel of light between galaxies and earth, radioactive decay, and the growing fossil record (with growing studies on it), I will not delve further here into such considerations.

Rather, enter one Gerald Schroeder, former physics professor at MIT and practicing Orthodox Jew. He propounds a theory--for what it might be worth to the reader here--combining (1) the Big Bang hypothesis, (2) the General Theory of Relativity, (3) a factor related to the measured expansion of the universe (I think--he mentions something about a ratio of the temperature/wavelength of "empty space"--about 3 degrees Kelvin--with something to do with protons/wavelength/temperature at the theoretical instant of the Big Bang [or ten to the minus-something second thereafter]), (4) and traditional rabbinic exegesis of Genesis 1 (Nachmanides, etc.).

The theory says something like mapping five and a half(ish) days from the vantage of Adam (6000 or so of our years ago) onto a rapidly expanding universe (given points (1) through (3) above) maps the age of the universe since the Big Bang at about 13.6 billion of our years ago. Time is not a constant.

Mind you I don't follow all the physics. But Schroeder holds to (1) a literal Adam 6000 or so of our years ago, (2) a literal six day creation mapped onto time which varies greatly back to a Big Bang, and therefore a great age to the earth (for example) allowing for dinosaurs (as he mentions in a lecture I heard parts of).

Well, its a theory anyway, not that I follow it all. No one can know all there is to know in all intellectual pursuits impinging on questions of origins (e.g., astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, oceanography, philosophy and religion, mathematics, medicine, etc.) and in scientific terms there is so much that no one knows (save the Creator) while there are many significant roadblocks (e.g., concerning quantum entanglement, dark matter, naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis). But to date I see no necessary reason to doubt a natural reading of the creation narratives in Genesis as (1) part and parcel with the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch, (2) possible corrections of alternative ancient cosmologies (e.g., the Enuma Elish), and (3) narratives Jesus believed.

 

[SkyWriting]

But, I've already told you that the age of the Earth was never their concern, because nobody back then cared how old the Earth was. Nowadays we do, so we have traced the Biblical timeline and found the Earth to be much younger than what secular society thinks.

But it's not a tenant of Christianity. It's a distraction to your faith.
It's an artificial wall created to build a cult religion "Creationism"
If you study the cult religions you'll find they use such tactics
to "peel off" believers from the mainstream for financial reasons.
And power and prestige.

1. So where do you get this false idea that nobody cared about the
age of the earth 2000 years ago? How is this possible?

Why did God not foresee this "crisis" YE Creationists claim is chipping
at the foundations of christianity?

He did? Yes, by providing this clear path to creation week date:

5501 (B.C. as determined by biblical scholars before Ussher.)
5492
5426
5411
5199
4192
4141
4103
4079
4062
4053
4051
4042
4041
4021
4005
4004
4001
3983
3975
3974
3971
3971
3970
3968
3966
3964
3963
3958
3949
3927
3836

Do you really think God works this way with His facts?
Is it possible that a young earth is not a biblical concept?

BIG QUESTION
If Christianity were to embrace an ancient earth model.....
would it drive people away from Christianity
or not drive people away from Christianity?

That's a trick question. Only God is in control.
If that's so, then the YE Creationist argument
for existing is already out the window. Rats.
There goes my years following I.C.R.

 

[rjs330]

There is no need to suppose a false dichotomy between science and faith. Faith affirms science; that is, faith that acknowledges God as the creator of our world acknowledges the existence and function of the same subject matter that science investigates, which is the material world. The differences between the positions is not properly distinguished as faith versus science but faith versus scientism/materialism. Those of us who have accepted and integrated the theory of evolution into our theology do so as a result of succumbing to the influences of atheistic philosophies, not superior scientific theory. That is because evolutionary theory as employed by non-theists presupposes the absence of God in the creation of the natural order and that science is the only viable means by which we can apprehend knowledge of anything at all. If this was not the case (that these Christians are, in part, accommodating atheistic philosophies of scientism and materialism) then no Christian would have need of assuming a theory which is based upon confusions that exist only as a result of the denial of two important facts revealed in the Genesis account: 1. That everything produces after it's own kind, and 2. The universe was created with mature initial conditions.

First, the fact that everything produces after it's own kind is empirically observed, and the fossil record is a laughable attempt at establishing the tenability of the theory in this regard. Connecting sets of bones with increasing similarities, considering the concurrent structural variances within groups of species that allow us to manipulatively filter models that are most similar in design, is a childish excuse for circumventing this reality. Secondly, the universe will have an appearance of age that is well beyond the actual duration of it's existence as a consequence of being created mature. For example, Adam would have appeared a full grown man though he was only a day old. This does not constitute lying or misinformation as it is explicitly revealed in this account that the universe was created this way. The only ones being mislead and confused are those who refuse to accept God at His word, which will result in one observing the universe with false premises and a need to establish an account that avoids inference from God as the first cause.

The only viable evidence used (the appearance of the age of the universe) is dismantled for the theist (and truthfully, non-theist, though other arguments would likely be necessary in addition) once they recognize that the universe would appear as old as it does, despite being relatively young, due to the mature initial conditions it was created with as explicated in the Genesis account. So there are two kinds of faith; one that acknowledges God as the creator of the universe in the manner He described, or one that accommodates or affirms atheist philosophies of scientism and materialism. Both observe the same world, and are only distinguished by their affirmation or denial of God and the corresponding evidence we have to affirm the theology or ideology respectively. It is as philosophical battle, not a scientific one.

That my friend was a fantastic post!

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[ClothedInGrace]

But it's not a tenant of Christianity. It's a distraction to your faith.
It's an artificial wall created to build a cult religion "Creationism"
If you study the cult religions you'll find they use such tactics
to "peel off" believers from the mainstream for financial reasons.
And power and prestige.

Creationism is not a cult. It is the belief that God is our creator and that He did it exactly how He said He did. I'm not following a religious man-made belief system, but the Word of God. Unless, of course, you believe the Word of God is simply man-made fantasy as many on this forum do.

1. So where do you get this false idea that nobody cared about the
age of the earth 2000 years ago? How is this possible?

Where is the evidence that they did care? There was no theory of evolution or dating methods back then, so why would they even question the age of the Earth? Their focus was on God, not the age of God's creation.

Do you really think God works this way with His facts?
Is it possible that a young earth is not a biblical concept?

The young earth theory comes from the Bible; the old earth theory comes from secular science.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Time does not have anything to do with creation?

I don't understand your question. Of course time has something to do with creation because God said He created in a certain amount of time.

 

[Colter]

There is no question that the Hebrew authors who redacted Moses's original writings wrote a YEC story. They didn't know any better and frankly made no claim of writing the "Word of God." But in so doing they failed to remove matter of fact statements in the record such as Cains emigration to Nod where he found a wife.

Also, the flood myth expanded on a locally know legend of a local flood story as a genealogical divise. Adopting a well known tradition of ancient Adam and Eve, the Hebrews had hoped to connect their blood lines to Adam for reasons of nationalistic pride, the chosen people arrogance.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

There is no question that the Hebrew authors who redacted Moses's original writings wrote a YEC story. They didn't know any better and frankly made no claim of writing the "Word of God." But in so doing they failed to remove matter of fact statements in the record such as Cains emigration to Nod where he found a wife.

Also, the flood myth expanded on a locally know legend of a local flood story as a genealogical divise. Adopting a well known tradition of ancient Adam and Eve, the Hebrews had hoped to connect their blood lines to Adam for reasons of nationalistic pride, the chosen people arrogance.

That still doesn't explain why God Himself said He created the world and all that is in it in six days. Did you read the OP?

 

[rjs330]

But it's not a tenant of Christianity. It's a distraction to your faith.
It's an artificial wall created to build a cult religion "Creationism"
If you study the cult religions you'll find they use such tactics
to "peel off" believers from the mainstream for financial reasons.
And power and prestige.

1. So where do you get this false idea that nobody cared about the
age of the earth 2000 years ago? How is this possible?

Why did God not foresee this "crisis" YE Creationists claim is chipping
at the foundations of christianity?

He did? Yes, by providing this clear path to creation week date:

5501 (B.C. as determined by biblical scholars before Ussher.)
5492
5426
5411
5199
4192
4141
4103
4079
4062
4053
4051
4042
4041
4021
4005
4004
4001
3983
3975
3974
3971
3971
3970
3968
3966
3964
3963
3958
3949
3927
3836

Do you really think God works this way with His facts?
Is it possible that a young earth is not a biblical concept?

BIG QUESTION
If Christianity were to embrace an ancient earth model.....
would it drive people away from Christianity
or not drive people away from Christianity?

I don't know that ancient earth would drive anyone to or from Christianity. Most folks don't give their lives to Christ because they think the earth is young. They do it because they realise they need him. The age of the earth is irrelevant to that choice.

But what is relevant to faith is the Word of God as a whole. Do we believe it or don't we. If we choose what we believe and don't believe then that puts us as humans in the position of judging the truthfulness of God's word. That's a very bad plan. We become the final arbiter of truth and not the Word of God.

God is very clear in Genesis and Exodus that he creates the heavens and earth in six days. Fully formed and ready to go. It didn't grow from an ameoba or whatever. Which is he created it aged. He wasn't deceptive or lying as he said what he did. Its man's faulty science and faulty methods that questionable.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[tickingclocker]

@tickingclocker , @Hoghead1 :

I present to you another question:

If God made Adam and placed him in Eden, do you believe that he did so with Adam being a mature adult, or a newborn infant?

If you believe that Adam was already a mature adult (or at the very least, late pubescent?), then why couldn't He have created the Earth in a mature state as well?

God said He did it in 6 days. Science thinks it was millions of years. Who is to say that God, on Day 1 and Day 2 didn't create an Earth that already "looks" mature just like when He placed Adam in the garden? Human life usually starts out as a sperm+egg cell inside of a woman... but there was no woman before Adam.

And for that matter, Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. I doubt she entered the world as a newborn infant either, right?

Well, if God was able to do that with Adam and Eve, then why not the rest of the Earth? If He is able to create a universe by speaking it into existence, I'm quite sure He's able to create beasts, trees, and yes, two people and place them on the Earth in a mature state.

But that doesn't mean that He didn't do it in 6 days.

As to the "retranslation, redactions, etc" of the Bible... they've found very, very old scrolls... incredibly old writings... of some of the Torah and guess what? They were 99% faithful to the ones that are found today, with almost no change. There's one thing that Jewish scholars are known for, and that is that they are extremely careful when copying their holy scrolls. Have you ever seen any videos or pictures of Jewish rabbis handling Torah scrolls? They treat those things like they are made out of gold. They treat them like they are priceless.

Contrast that to some Christians that hold up a Bible, waving it around and then thump it loudly down on a podium with barely any respect for it whatsoever.

Wow. Are you standing on a particular soapbox at present?? And so early on such a fine morning, too. How DO you keep hold of that cuppa?


It doesn't matter to me a whit what age God created Adam. God created Adam, because He says He did. If He didn't mention Adam's age at creation, He may have thought it a greater vehicle for trusting Him. How does anyone know? (I have simple faith. Don't knock it.) Who is to say He didn't determine what time should consist of either? No one has the right to determine God or His methods. He cannot be defined or confined with mere human words. Can He? Most people of faith come to recognize that. It's not 'wiggle room' either that they are 'allowing' God. It's recognizing the fact that GOD says He is unknowable to us, except for the few things He's graciously offered us. (And we can't even settle that little bit amongst ourselves, assuming we have a "right" in our foolish ignorance to endlessly argue their most infinitesimal points!)

So why contend over who is "right or wrong" when no one can know all the facts? Accept that people will believe differently. We must all answer to God if our views put Him in a smaller or entirely incorrect perspective. That will be HIS judgment, not anyone else's to make in this life or the next. Even Jesus Christ didn't know all there was to God in His PERFECT humanity. He lost nothing by expressing that, so shouldn't we follow suit? We are all learning, precept upon precept, every day---how unknowable God and His ways are. Not how much we know about God. We will be learning of God into eternity and still never know Him fully! The older you get in faith, the more you recognize our present darkness for what it is: as much as you try, you just cannot truly comprehend the unlimited glories of God in this human form. To some that is comforting and freeing. To others its senseless and threatening. No one can contain Him as "thus and so" from the few, brief sentences given to us, however holy. Do you sincerely think He wanted that from us? God OUT of all our boxes is so much more awesome!! That causes me to praise Him even more. But then, maybe it all hinges upon your outlook of either, "I know God", or "God knows me".

So, did God create life in six days? Define all life? Define all days? Define all creating? According to your understanding within human language, or from God's understanding of the above? You probably will not accept this, but then, you don't have to. Before God, it's mine. Now, I've answer two of your questions. Could you perhaps respond to a few of mine when you get a chance? No hurry.

And btw, "science" doesn't think. Scientists, however, do. (Sorry, its the smotty English teacher in me.)

 

[Nym]

I don't understand your question. Of course time has something to do with creation because God said He created in a certain amount of time.

Just for consideration, Peter was supposed to have said, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Is this a limitation of God (why not 10,000 years as one day), or is it that it is a moot point to God who declares the end from the beginning, or is there a connection to to the days of the week, or the hours that are in a day, or beyond?

If I say what does the word dog mean to you? The answer you give will be according to what your present understanding of this word means to you; the word time, or the even the word God is no different.

 

[Colter]

h

That still doesn't explain why God Himself said He created the world and all that is in it in six days. Did you read the OP?

Yes, and I answered the OP earlier. God didn't say it, the Hebrew priest class who wrote Genesis said it, they didn't claim to be dictating for God. Their writings would later become sacred, then they became Gods Word for purposes of church government authority.

The Bible has been made into an idol, a fetish, a golden calf.

I believe Adam and Eve incarnate on an evolved, previously fallen earth. They were to be the worlds new spiritual rulers ordained by the Son of God after the crafty beast fell into rebellion and sin. But sadly, they also fell but repented. I think the 6 day creation came from the idea that Adam & Eve spent their first 6 days on earth learning all about the wildlife and animals in their new garden home that had been prepared for them by earth inhabitants in that age.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationism is not a cult.

My error. Young Earth Creationism is a cult. I have attended many of their meetings.
Most interesting, life changing for me, was my face to face conversation with James Irwin.
I asked him if the surface of the moon indicated that the earth was young. He indicated, no.

Their focus was on God, not the age of God's creation.

As it should forever remain and not stray.

The young earth theory comes from the Bible; the old earth theory comes from secular science.

Mine came from Creationist and Christian event speaker, James Irwin.
http://www.highflightfoundation.org/about_us

 

[SkyWriting]

If we choose what we believe and don't believe then that puts us as humans in the position of judging the truthfulness of God's word. That's a very bad plan. We become the final arbiter of truth and not the Word of God.

My mistake. Young Earth Creationism is a cult and fits
most all the parameters of a religious cult. It's a cult
I have left and no longer support in it's mission. They
still profit about 2 million a year without me.
But full credit goes to Henry Morris who taight me
to read the scriptures "plain and simple", on the first
read at least. The more convoluted the reading, the
less likely the true message. And there is nothing simple
about computing the age of creation.
https://answersingenesis.org/

 

[tickingclocker]

Well, it saddens me how so many fundamentalists think that they are the only game in town , that their interpretation of Scripture is the only viable one. To me, it seems more likely that God never intended the Bible to be an accurate geophysical witness. I know I pointed that out in just another post today. Maybe yours. In case you missed it, I believe God works like a carpenter, God works with the grain, not over and against it. God well knew he was working with a prescientific people. God well knew that it would make no sense to reveal to them advanced scientific truth. They wouldn't have known what to do with it. Expecting God to have done that, would be like expecting God to give Columbus a nuclear sub and say here are the keys, have at it. Poor Christ wouldn't have know what to do wit it. So again, I think it's sad the way teh Bible Belt seems to think that it has the only viable understanding of how God relates to Scripture.

That's very good insight. Thank you for sharing that. My grandfather was a master carpenter, and he taught us kids a lot about his craft. Mostly his love of us through it. That's what we will utilize and cherish more until the very day we die. His love and his joy to take the time to show us what he valued. Not how critical the dimensions of a certain nail is.

People search for and respond to God's love, not to man's facts 'of' God's love however precisely presented in neatly confined boxes. A few simply cannot stand that ageless homing instinct, having little to no love or joy in them to comprehend its basis.

 

[Look Up]

... the universe will have an appearance of age that is well beyond the actual duration of it's existence as a consequence of being created mature. For example, Adam would have appeared a full grown man though he was only a day old. This does not constitute lying or misinformation as it is explicitly revealed in this account that the universe was created this way. ...

Does the Genesis creation narrative require that God created the earth's moon complete with at least some of its circular pock marks and impact-appearing scattered rock fragments (i.e., "mature" in that sense) otherwise often explained as evidence of meteor impacts (that is, a process subsequent to origins)? Does the Genesis creation narrative require what appears in telescopes as an exploded star (with high temperature objects and light radiating out from a geometric center) was created originally in what appears as in star-exploded state, complete with light radiating out from the objects at distances that would normally take billions of years for light to travel, in this case to earth for us to observe?

The question is not, "Can God do such things?" or "Can God make something initially in a way that appears to have a natural causative process before such origins? I think we agree God can, technically speaking. Rather the question is "Did He?" (per Genesis 1) or "Did He in some sufficient number of ways create in such a way as to imply some natural process before origins without such processes having occurred? Or otherwise, would you further explain what you mean, aside from the example of Adam, by creation with apparent age when human observation suggests natural process prior to proposed origins? I think it would clarify best by sticking to cases of origins of the material universe other than those involving living organisms or beings.

Or in other words, I'm not sure where this argument you are making is headed or how to weigh it. In my former post on this thread I have offered an alternative explanation to reading Genesis 1, though from one "relativity" vantage point the days are also literal 24 hour periods, which seems to alleviate the challenge here in its own way, but "apparent age" may have merit provided it can be better qualified and vetted--unless that would better be done on a separate thread.

 

[Look Up]

Just for consideration, Peter was supposed to have said, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Is this a limitation of God (why not 10,000 years as one day), or is it that it is a moot point to God who declares the end from the beginning, or is there a connection to to the days of the week, or the hours that are in a day, or beyond?

See my post # 45 on this thread concerning time as variable--not that the General Theory of Relativity is what Peter had in mind.