Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Colter]

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?

Scriptures were generally intended for spiritual instruction and guidance. The authors were neither historians nor philosophers, they were the holy men and political leaders of tribes of men. I've had inspirations of a spiritual nature but I would never petrify those into an official Word. God is in the heart of every child of faith. Jesus poured out the spirit of truth upon all sincere seekers of truth.

 

[tickingclocker]

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

Exactly how long was that "day" the earth was "without form and void", before God created our light, the sun? Please share your thoughts and cite any verses to back them up.

Genesis 1:2, 3. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And [THEN] God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

a. There was an earth, however unformed and void of life.
b. It was dark, also known as being void of light.
c. There was a "deep", whatever that meant.
d. If there was a "deep", there may have been a "high".
e. The Spirit of God freely moved around the water.
f. There was water on earth before light.
g. There was an actual earth because something solid supported the water.
h-z.... ?
Conclusion: God created. Yay God!

I'm not trying to be snarky or knowledgeable, just trying to explain the possibility of, it's okay to not comprehend all mysteries of God, yet still trust Him for who He IS, not just for what He did/does/will do, or that you can understand Him in minute detail. Jesus didn't know all of His own Father in His perfect humanity (just like us with our earthly fathers), and He was comfortable with that. Why should we think we need to, then? In addition, why would anyone assume they have the right to tell us we need to? You have to ask, then, why are they assuming we need to know everything about God? From who's perspective? Generally its found to be their perspective. Watch out when that happens.

 

[rjs330]

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

When Genesis was,written it was written to,mankind. He was describing days to people who understood what a day was. He defined day as evening and morning so we would,now how long it took him to create everything. It took 6 evenings and,morning as days. The Hebrew for day "yom" is defined by context. In Genesis it is defined by evening and morning. This is further established in Exodus when God refers to creating six days and resiting one and then telling the Isrealites to follow his example.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

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...

Right, I wasn't saying you were. It was an assumption of mine because evolution says we all evolved from the same ancestry. So when Christians say they believe that God may have created by evolution the assumption that they believe man evolved just like everything else from the same primordial ooze. Are you saying that everything but man evolved? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Sorry if I am.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

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?

Well I think he is debating with those that would argue that God created by evolution. Which is not biblical and I would agree with him and also try and convince other brothers to not buy into man's concepts but God's truth.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Exactly how long was that "day" the earth was "without form and void", before God created our light, the sun? Please share your thoughts and cite any verses to back them up.

Genesis 1:2, 3. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And [THEN] God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

a. There was an earth, however unformed and void of life.
b. It was dark, also known as being void of light.
c. There was a "deep", whatever that meant.
d. If there was a "deep", there may have been a "high".
e. The Spirit of God freely moved around the water.
f. There was water on earth before light.
g. There was an actual earth because something solid supported the water.
h-z.... ?
Conclusion: God created. Yay God!

I'm not trying to be snarky or knowledgeable, just trying to explain the possibility of, it's okay to not comprehend all mysteries of God, yet still trust Him for who He IS, not just for what He did/does/will do, or that you can understand Him in minute detail. Jesus didn't know all of His own Father in His perfect humanity (just like us with our earthly fathers), and He was comfortable with that. Why should we think we need to, then? In addition, why would anyone assume they have the right to tell us we need to? You have to ask, then, why are they assuming we need to know everything about God? From who's perspective? Generally its found to be their perspective. Watch out when that happens.

That is an interesting point. In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. How long did that take? The bible doesn't say. How long was the earth without form and void before God began The rest of creation. The actual 6 day creation starts after God created the heavens and earth.

But it is interesting to note that God didn't create the stars, sun and moon until day 4. AFTER he created the plants.

This flys in the face of evolutionary belief. As does day 5. God creates the fish and then the birds. Evolution would say life came from the sea and the the land and then they evolved into,birds. But God did this backwards from evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[tatteredsoul]

God did not make the earth in six days. He made EVERYTHING IN THE HEAVENS AND EARTH in six days..

Re-read the scripture: earth and the heaven were created in the beginning - before a day was ever defined by God. Before the sun. Before the moon. Before the stars.

Earth is "age old" - even before time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

The only game in town is the Bible, and as it's written.

Wouldn't God saying the earth was created in 6 days, while intending that comment to not be accurate as you more than indicate he does there, be a little confusing? To me, something Like that would definitely make him the God of confusion, but at the same time he says he is not the God of confusion.

Is he the God of confusion as you indicate or do you think the claim of not being the author of confusion is inaccurate too, and he meant something else?

It just makes no sense at all God would say something is true it if it weren't so. God IS truth. Maybe you can tell us what part we can believe and what part we cannot?

 

[Nym]

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

It would be as much of a stretch to say that the day was literal, as it would be to say Jesus was a literal lamb, reminds me of Nicodemus and his reply to being born again.

 

[KWCrazy]

Exactly how long was that "day" the earth was "without form and void", before God created our light, the sun? Please share your thoughts and cite any verses to back them up.

Genesis 1:2, 3. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And [THEN] God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Let's just pick up where you left off.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
That's how long the day was.
Since this is written from the perspective of the earth it was one earth evening and one morning; one solar day; one day. There is no reason to presume that it was any longer than the second day measured the same way; or the third. God didn't need billions of years. He created a mature world in its entirely, complete with stars on day four whose light shone on the earth.

 

[Nym]

The only game in town is the Bible, and as it's written.

Wouldn't God saying the earth was created in 6 days, while intending that comment to not be accurate as you more than indicate he does there, be a little confusing? To me, something Like that would definitely make him the God of confusion, but at the same time he says he is not the God of confusion.

Is he the God of confusion as you indicate or do you think the claim of not being the author of confusion is inaccurate too, and he meant something else?

It just makes no sense at all God would say something is true it if it weren't so. God IS truth. Maybe you can tell us what part we can believe and what part we cannot?

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Jeremiah 1:17 Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only game in town is the Bible, and as it's written.

Wouldn't God saying the earth was created in 6 days, while intending that comment to not be accurate as you more than indicate he does there, be a little confusing? To me, something Like that would definitely make him the God of confusion, but at the same time he says he is not the God of confusion.

Is he the God of confusion as you indicate or do you think the claim of not being the author of confusion is inaccurate too, and he meant something else?

It just makes no sense at all God would say something is true it if it weren't so. God IS truth. Maybe you can tell us what part we can believe and what part we cannot?

And who is responsible for the way the rocks are? God is. Who is responsible for the way the stars are? God is. Who is responsible for the way the genetics are in living things? God is.

So you can trust the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes . . . they all came from God's hand. And they tell us of the age of the earth and the manner of creation.

Are there contradictions in the Bible? Some say yes, there are, and give examples. Others then move in an reinterpret passages heroically - cleverly - with many words - and claim they have removed the contradictions.

It is just as possible to reconcile the age of the earth and evolution with the Bible as to reconcile the other so-called contradictions in the Bible. All it takes is the same reinterpretation, clever use of words, and steely resolve displayed already by reconciling the other alleged contradictions.

There will be those who refuse to do this. They would rather disbelieve the evidence from God's stars, God's rocks, God's genomes.

Their choice.

 

[Look Up]

It would be as much of a stretch to say that the day was literal, as it would be to say Jesus was a literal lamb, reminds me of Nicodemus and his reply to being born again.

I see your point except for its relevance to my post # 45 to which the above is an ostensible response.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you can trust the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes . . . they all came from God's hand. And they tell us of the age of the earth and the manner of creation.

That is the beginning of the problem. All you say up to the point of what those things "tell us" is true. Science doesn't ere but Scientists can ere badly. For example, some believe those things that God created also "tell us" we came from an accidental blast out of thin air and eventually that rock became a monkey and the monkey became us.

 

[MWood]

Thinking about evolution, man and woman has evolved. We have evolved from living in caves to where we are now.....building our own mancaves. Now that's evolution at its best.

 

[Nym]

I see your point except for its relevance to my post # 45 to which the above is an ostensible response.

Maybe, but things do not necessarily have to be true for someone to believe that they are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let's just pick up where you left off.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
That's how long the day was.
Since this is written from the perspective of the earth it was one earth evening and one morning; one solar day; one day. There is no reason to presume that it was any longer than the second day measured the same way; or the third. God didn't need billions of years. He created a mature world in its entirely, complete with stars on day four whose light shone on the earth.

That's what I see too. I read that every which way, and tried my best to see a gap in there that would explain what some understandably see as a huge block of lost time, but I couldn't. Maybe it will be revealed to us someday and both sides of this will get some surprises, but until then, fortunately I don't see how a lack of understanding in this area could make or break our salvation....thankfully. Or maybe I'm wrong, so will ere on the side of caution and stick with the 6 days God said over what man says they can prove.

 

[Look Up]

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?

There are grounds, for example, for trusting Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The veracity of the Genesis narrative in part is tied to Jesus' identity (as well as to the Mosaic miracles as well as divine inspiration of Moses' writings)--a discussion for another thread, for example. Whether God would create a deception is at least one question that is at stake in the argument as I picked it up from Thir7ySev3n, though I'm not sure it is as simple as that (and may from the proposal I had offered in post # 45 be moot). For example, is it deception if God created the sun with light already from its surface to a point as far away as Pluto, all streamed out at the sun's original moment? Why and what does one mean by deception?

I am again, in other words, at a loss to know how to frame a "created mature" argument in any comprehensive or satisfying way, hence my previous request for clarification from Thir7ySev3n who claimed a "created mature" basis. Yet for those who admit supernatural causation such as myself, the role of the supernatural in nature remains a viable question (with variable possible answers).

 

[Look Up]

Maybe, but things do not necessarily have to be true for someone to believe that they are.

Granted, though I am not assured you follow Schroeder's theory (and its only a theory)--I don't fully-- or (as I have understood it with vague memory) experimental confirmation of the theory involving the variability of time in certain conditions.

 

[Colter]

There are grounds, for example, for trusting Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The veracity of the Genesis narrative in part is tied to Jesus' identity (as well as to the Mosaic miracles as well as divine inspiration of Moses' writings)--on another thread, for example. Whether God would create a deception is at least one question that is at stake in the argument as I picked it up from Thir7ySev3n, though I'm not sure it is as simple as that (and may from the proposal I had offered in post # 45 be moot). For example, is it deception if God created the sun with light already from the surface to a point as far away as Pluto, all streamed out at the sun's original moment? Why and what does one mean by deception?

I am again, in other words, at a loss to know how to frame a "created mature" argument in any comprehensive or satisfying way, hence my previous request for clarification from Thir7ySev3n who claimed a "created mature" basis. Yet for those who admit supernatural causation such as myself, the role of the supernatural in nature remains a viable question (with variable possible answers).

I think part of the problem lay in the human speculation about the meaning of divine revelations at different times throughout the history of Judaism and through different agents.

I really don't know why it is that people cant see that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah as they conceived he would be based in part on this very same speculation woven into the OT scriptures.

Again, the problem wasn't Jesus, it wasn't God, it was the human writings that sealed the expectations.

Its certainly not a popular thing to consider, but the biblical scholars who first started seeing the redactions within the OT books were simply observing and very uncomfortable truth; the Hebrews rewrote their history, they converted a relatively ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction......based on some very real divine activities.