Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[MWood]

What did God mean when He told the first man and woman to REPLENISH the earth. Were there people on the earth before them? The word replenish makes me think there were. Was this man and woman the first after a renewing of the earth, where every thing that was here was destroyed?
By answering this question, can you ty the answer in with your argument? Maybe so.

 

[Neogaia777]

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

I believe their was a "created" species of man (Adam and Eve) in an isolated part of the world, and there was an "evolved" species that was very close to man, but not considered man by God, Cain was probably the first to procreate with this other evolved species, which by God's standards, he would probably consider beastiality by God

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe Peter can shed some light.

2 Peter 3King James Version (KJV)

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Peter refers to at least two distinct "heaven and earths". (Geology reveals many destructions (of) the earth over the millennia.) Based on the existence of created material in Genesis 1:1 it is reasonable to believe the creation of Genesis was not the original creation but a renewal, as was the earth after the flood. Note that verse 6 says the world "that then was" perished. It did not somehow recover to it's past state. This too required a great renewal as well, perhaps another 6 days of work by God, but not recorded in the bible.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Maybe Peter can shed some light.

2 Peter 3King James Version (KJV)

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Peter refers to at least two distinct "heaven and earths". (Geology reveals many destructions (of) the earth over the millennia.) Based on the existence of created material in Genesis 1:1 it is reasonable to believe the creation of Genesis was not the original creation but a renewal, as was the earth after the flood. Note that verse 6 says the world "that then was" perished. It did not somehow recover to it's past state. This too required a great renewal as well, perhaps another 6 days of work by God, but not recorded in the bible.

The biggest problem is the Hebrew and culture erroneously tralslated, and transliterated over many languages. And, often the bible is not taught through the lens of the respective culture and language.

The word "yom" can mean anything from sunrise to sunrise, or the "hot" part of a day (like the literal daylight time,) or an unspecified period of time/age/aeon. It is highly possible both science and God agree - indeed it is guaranteed they do since God has OMNIscience.

And, couple that with the Hebrew meanings of the word day, night, darkness, light, void, become, is, etc. - an analysis of all words in Gen 1:1-26 - one will see that there is something else going on. Without a sun, or shine clearly from "outside" earth, we have the issue of contextual meaning of "day." In other words, God separating illumination in every single way (ore/light,) and evil/ignorance/death/confusion/darkness (choshek/darkness) - and that was before there were stars to produce the "hot" part of the day and a 24 hour day system, as well as satellites like the moon to dictate months and evenings. So we must use the applicable definition - closest of which is AGE.

On the first "unspecified period of time/age/aeon," God separated light from darkness... and so on.

But, the earth and heaven is age old. That is why "scientists" measure it's age as only 1/3 the age of the universe.

 

[KWCrazy]

The word "yom" can mean anything from sunrise to sunrise, or the "hot" part of a day (like the literal daylight time,) or an unspecified period of time/age/aeon. It is highly possible both science and God agree - indeed it is guaranteed they do since God has OMNIscience.

Like the word "Day" yom can have different meanings. However, when used in a numbered sequence (first day, second day); or when designated by evening and morning, Yom always means a singular calendar day; just as the word "day" itself. There is no unspecified time period in creation, and no ambiguity in Exodus 20:11.

 

[Nym]

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.

I don't, but I don't discount the value of anything, but I believe the approach to understanding a day, is to understand the mind of the one who made it, and Jesus seemed to think his word was spirit, but this doesn't discount the reality of the construction of matter and all it's vibrating qualities.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Like the word "Day" yom can have different meanings. However, when used in a numbered sequence (first day, second day); or when designated by evening and morning, Yom always means a singular calendar day; just as the word "day" itself. There is no unspecified time period in creation, and no ambiguity in Exodus 20:11.

How can you have a calendar day with no calendar?

How can you have ice with no water (note ice is the name for solid water, not a cold substance.)

The definitions of Yom were the given. The first of them require 24 hour days, a warm part of a day, a sun, etc. Those were not created until the FOURTH day, so "calendar days" were not used.

And, where is it imperative numbered days are calendar days?

This is the same process as looking up a definition in the dictionary. Definitions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (a) don't fit? Go to definition 4 (b), 5, or 6. Don't force a square into a circle.

 

[Queller]

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.

What makes you think God isn't talking to Moses in allegory (IOW in concepts Moses understands)?

 

[tickingclocker]

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.

I repeat, how many "days" were there before God created the light, and thus day and night? Were there 24 hour days? Think. There is a reason why those first three verses are not a run-on sentence.

 

[Queller]

That's the only way one can believe in anything the Bible says.

We are saved by faith alone through grace alone. No faith = no salvation.

You can't have two things that that save us alone. It's either through faith in, and the grace, of God (two things) or it's through faith alone or grace alone.

 

[Queller]

If we trace the timeline the Bible gives us starting with the first day of Creation then the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Then the evidence that God left behind means He has lied to us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What makes you think God isn't talking to Moses in allegory (IOW in concepts Moses understands)?

You mean as in days as opposed to those complicated years?

 

[Queller]

I never said I was trying to prove Young Earth.

I'm merely here saying that what God said in the Bible is 100% truth and we should stop trying to reconcile the Bible with man's flawed understanding of science. No, we should be reconciling science with the Bible.

Anytime Science and the Bible disagree, it is Science that needs to budge, not the Bible.

Science says the earth is round (technically an oblate spheroid). The Bible says that there is a mountain on the earth from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the world, something not possible on a sphere even in the time of Jesus. Which needs to budge, scientific evidence or fallible man's interpretation of the Bible?

 

[ScottA]

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.

"Let us make man in our image - only stupid - then, let's lie to them and let them figure it all out on their own."

Brilliant. Just brilliant!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then the evidence that God left behind means He has lied to us.

What evidence and how does it imply that?

 

[Queller]

You mean as in days as opposed to those complicated years?

I mean why is it not possible that God is using the term days to stand in for concepts which a Bronze Age citizen would have no understanding?

 

[Queller]

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........"

Do they say "it can't be true" or are they saying "it can't be literal"? There is a huge difference.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I mean why is it not possible that God is using the term days to stand in for concepts which a Bronze Age citizen would have no understanding?

Please be more specific...what concepts?

 

[tickingclocker]

What makes you think God isn't talking to Moses in allegory (IOW in concepts Moses understands)?

Wow, what a great avatar!! Did someone just tell you the baby (who has the flu) is stinky and needs changing? lol!! Horror personified!

God always talks to us in terms we can understand. We are not gods, and never will be. Bob here thinks God states He created our entire solar system in six days. He also must believe, despite God stating He is Spirit, that Spirits have hands? He must, because God said that, too:

Exodus 3:20a. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it...

Would God tell the literal truth in one verse, then kinda lie in another?

 

[ScottA]

What did God mean when He told the first man and woman to REPLENISH the earth. Were there people on the earth before them? The word replenish makes me think there were. Was this man and woman the first after a renewing of the earth, where every thing that was here was destroyed?
By answering this question, can you ty the answer in with your argument? Maybe so.

to fill, be full

1. (Qal)
   1. to be full
      1. fulness, abundance (participle)
      2. to be full, be accomplished, be ended
   2. to consecrate, fill the hand

...But "replenish", is in reference to what was "lost" in the fall. Matthew 18:11