Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Neogaia777]

Genesis 1-2:4 is a "summary" of creation, beginning to end, then in Genesis 2:4 on, we get into details...

Also when God says "he created" why could it not be through a guided and directed evolutionary process...

 

[tickingclocker]

EDIT: I misread something when I quoted, so I'll revise this post:

Many agnostics, atheists, are saying "Oh, that [God's Creation Account] CAN'T be true, because Science says........"

Ever think that maybe Science is wrong? Maybe scientists miscalculated? Maybe something happened that Science doesn't even know about? Maybe God snapped His Holy Fingers and sped time up for awhile, or perhaps the laws of time or physics worked differently in "pre-history" than they do post-history?

We don't know that, because there are no surviving records to document one way or the other except for God and His Word.

God was the only One who was there (well, His angels were too).

Obviously, there are things God didn't tell us. He told us enough that we need to know. And what He did tell us, you got Christians going "no, no, science says....."

Oi.

If if offends you that some scientists, agnostics and atheists don't believe God created the earth, why are you arguing with those who DO believe God created the earth, however He may have done it? Have you tried joining scientific, agnostic and atheist forums to argue your points with them? Maybe its time you should?

 

[TillICollapse]

NM

 

[Colter]

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.

Why would God create a deception to fit a narrative written 4,000 years after the fact? Maybe the problem is the narrative written by men and not the world as it appears?

 

[SkyWriting]

Many agnostics, atheists, are saying "Oh, that [God's Creation Account] CAN'T be true, because Science says........"

The same exact mistake by Christians "Oh, that can't be true because the Bible says........"
You know what? People are flawed and don't always understand the scriptures.
If fact, they come up with new ways to apply the scriptures to their lives
every day!
Have the scriptures changed?
Has their understanding changed?
Was their first understanding always correct?

 

[SkyWriting]

Also when God says "he created" why could it not be through a guided and directed evolutionary process.

Or every particle and moment in time, executed as planned by the Creator, as He rested.

 

[Neogaia777]

Why would God create a deception to fit a narrative written 4,000 years after the fact? Maybe the problem is the narrative written by men and not the world as it appears?

Their are some things we can "inherently" know about God, without scripture, without higher learning, we can do this through our "conscience" Our conscience tells us that God is Love, and he is merciful and kind, but not without wrath or anger when it is just, we know God is just...

Now the problem becomes were the Bible writers, writing things derived from their conscience and not the direct, audible "voice" of God...

I believe some of it was God speaking directly (I've heard this audible voice only once in my life) but I wonder when God was silent, how much was derived from their conscience?

 

[Neogaia777]

Or every particle and moment in time, executed as planned by the Creator, as He rested.

The seventh day?

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1-2:4 is a "summary" of creation, beginning to end, then in Genesis 2:4 on, we get into details...

Also when God says "he created" why could it not be through a guided and directed evolutionary process...

Because He said he created in six days, and that Adam was made from the dust of the earth.

 

[KWCrazy]

My mistake. Young Earth Creationism is a cult and fits
most all the parameters of a religious cult.

Arguably, Jesus was a young earth creationist.
There is nothing in the Bible which contradicts Exodus 20:11.

 

[Neogaia777]

Because He said he created in six days, and that Adam was made from the dust of the earth.

& one of God's "days" is more than a thousand years, could be millions, or billions, or even trillions of years in just one of God's "days"...

And Adam being formed from the dust of the ground is no big deal, everything alive on the earth came from the dust of the ground, and "stardust"...

 

[rjs330]

& one of God's "days" is more than a thousand years, could be millions, or billions, or even trillions of years in just one of God's "days"...

And Adam being formed from the dust of the ground is no big deal, everything alive on the earth came from the dust of the ground, and "stardust"...

Except that God defined the day. He said in Genesis that he made the light. Then after each creative day he defined it as evening and morning as a day. He confirmed this to Moses in Exodus.

Yes to God 1000 years is as a day. But note the wording. Is AS a day. He doesn't say it IS a day. He is not trying to define a day here. He is trying to portray the eternalness of God. God defined a day for us in Genesis. An evening and morning. To say it's thousands or millions of years is a stretch. Not an impossibility, but it's definitely not really supported in scripture.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Genesis 1-2:4 is a "summary" of creation, beginning to end, then in Genesis 2:4 on, we get into details...

Also when God says "he created" why could it not be through a guided and directed evolutionary process...

Because there is NO scriptural basis for that thought. After God created each thing he said each was a kind and he told each kind to multiply. That also goes for the plants. And he created man from the dust of the earth and not from an animal. He created man in his image. He did not create the animals in his image.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

If if offends you that some scientists, agnostics and atheists don't believe God created the earth, why are you arguing with those who DO believe God created the earth, however He may have done it? Have you tried joining scientific, agnostic and atheist forums to argue your points with them? Maybe its time you should?

I think he's arguing with belivers who may believe in evolution along with the atheists and agnostics.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Neogaia777]

Except that God defined the day. He said in Genesis that he made the light. Then after each creative day he defined it as evening and morning as a day. He confirmed this to Moses in Exodus.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

When God made light, the absence of light is darkness, thus day and night, what would day and night be in space?

 

[Neogaia777]

Because there is NO scriptural basis for that thought. After God created each thing he said each was a kind and he told each kind to multiply. That also goes for the plants. And he created man from the dust of the earth and not from an animal. He created man in his image. He did not create the animals in his image.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I didn't say all creatures were made in God's image, only man qualifies for that, but only that the other creatures were formed from the dust of the ground, like man was but NOT made in God's likeness...

 

[tickingclocker]

I think he's arguing with belivers who may believe in evolution along with the atheists and agnostics.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Then why is he also arguing with those who DO believe God created the earth, however He may have? Should we add in a disclaimer, "The following views and statements are not necessarily those of the general population within Christianity", for safety's sake? Or is that a given on this forum?

 

[KWCrazy]

& one of God's "days" is more than a thousand years, could be millions, or billions, or even trillions of years in just one of God's "days"...

The Scriptures do not say that. What you WILL find is that a day to the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. That is saying that God is timeless.
it is not a commentary on the creation, which defined the days as a single period of light and day; as in a single rotation of the earth with a singular source of light. That light didn't become the sun, moon and stars until day 3.

And Adam being formed from the dust of the ground is no big deal, everything alive on the earth came from the dust of the ground, and "stardust"...

It happened on the sixth day, not over billions of years.

 

[fat wee robin]

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.

Well I neither believe in 6000 years since Creation ,but then neither do I believe
in Darwinian evolution .When you say 'science 'this covers a lot of ground ,from the machine you are using to flying to the moon to baking .What do you mean by science.
Evidently the proof is there for most science ,we can see it in 'action ' ,but there is no real proof for evolution , no link has been truly found .
There is no question for me, that God made ,created everything as a whole working totality ,with inbuilt laws ,and that the 'time factor ' is the only question ,that is since for the Lord a day can be a thousand years ,we are not talking about 6 earth 'days'
but much larger ones .

 

[DamianWarS]

It's called contextual truth. Everything about the creation story is important but that doesn't mean it has to be literal. It's not a science book so stop reading it that way.

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk