Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

I think you are misrepresenting the scientific developed history of the universe and life.

 

[Queller]

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.

What is your evidence for this claim?

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 problem with this idea is that the universe not only has an appearance of age, but also has an appearance of history. For example, supernova remnants. A star must live millions of years to exhaust its fuel, explode, and have the remains become a supernova remnant. In a 6,000-10,000 yo old universe, there should be no supernova remnants. Yet we have hundreds of documented supernova remnants, a fact that should be impossible in a young universe.

Claiming that God created the universe with supernova remnants is akin to finding an adult skeleton buried in the ground and claiming that even though we have the skeleton, there was never a living human wrapped around those bones.

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.

See above regarding appearance of age vs appearance of history.

 

[Queller]

Your questions have nothing to do with the age of the Earth according to the Bible, but I'll answer them anyways.

Yes, all major tenants of Christianity are covered in the Bible. No, they are not covered in both the OT and NT, as the NT has much more to say about Christ and the nature of salvation whereas the OT does not. Jesus does speak directly to most of them.

I know why you are asking these questions: you think that in order for the age of the Earth to be taught dogmatically then Jesus, the NT, and the OT all need to have talked about it. 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.

See my post above in response to Thir7ySev3n re: appearance of age vs appearance of history.

 

[KWCrazy]

How can you have a calendar day with no calendar?

Do you think that time failed to exist before the wrist watch?
I also used the term "solar day" which is a more specific definition.
Regardless, your question is sophomoric and totally off point.

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.

Wrong. It doesn't require a 24 hour day, it requires a single rotation of the planet which is illuminated by a singular point of light. Light was created day one. Were the days longer or shorter? Likely shorter, since the earth is slowing and likely has been since its creation.
My thoughts are that "light" became the sun, moon and stars on day four. We see this as the "Big Bang." Interestingly, science has determined that the universe rapidly expanded, but there was no blast pattern whatever. This, it was not random. It was designed.

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

The evening and the morning were not eons, but days. Man is to work six days and rest on the seventh. The Lord made an example for all of us.

 

[Look Up]

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

What do you mean and what would the allegory represent? Can you suggest examples from Genesis 1 (especially) and 2, particularly ones with ancient parallels, particularly ones within the Pentateuch? Granted there are ancient "literary devices" in the Pentateuch, but there should be some specificity and controls behind your implied proposal. (See my posts # 45 and # 59 on this thread for some context about my own thoughts, the latter of which attempts an initial responsive to the "created mature" argument of Thir7ySev3n.)

Xalith has given us one example (the Sabbath in creation and in the Exodus Decalogue account) linking the creation with God's intent for His people (rest like God did). Did you have something like this in mind?

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

I dunno: God must have been a little confused, or Moses was. In Genesis 2:4 it says God created the earth and heavens in a day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[Steve Petersen]

Also, the Day of the Lord that the prophets warn about is only 24 hours long? Really?

 

[Queller]

When Genesis was,written it was written to,mankind. He was describing days to people who understood what a day was.

Exactly. The people of the time had no concept of millions of years, so God uses an allegorical reference with which they are familiar.

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.

How was there a morning and evening without the sun? The sun is what defines these concepts.

 

[Queller]

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've never understood why certain people believe that "in our image" means a physical image, as if God actually looks like an old white man with a beard.

 

[tickingclocker]

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

No, the bible doesn't say. God knows. A great comfort to the believer.

The earth's foundation is far older than life, which is why its not a huge ball of mud yet as my dad used to say. Bob asked, could God create "old" life? God can do anything, new or old. But He doesn't need anyone's understanding to do it a certain way either.

What life God created on the third day required sunlight to thrive as He commanded it. So having forming the Sun, etc. on the fourth day? Something is screwy there to human understanding. It's our understanding that cannot grasp the process of creation, not God's. No problem. I don't have to understand why my eyelids blink automatically, just that they do.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Do you think that time failed to exist before the wrist watch?
I also used the term "solar day" which is a more specific definition.
Regardless, your question is sophomoric and totally off point.

Time is a sophomoric concept. The international standarde unit for time, second, is defined as nine billion hyper fine transitions in the Cs - 133 atom. Time is an evolution of events. Why do you think atomic clocks are so accurate? Because of the physic quality of measuring time.

Light, darkness, day, night, void, as, is, became, are, etc. are very specific in Hebrew contextually. Light isn't extrapolated to some future concept (like a sun or moon,) it means illumination in every sense of the word. That includes enlightenment from God, or those enlightened by God. Something serious happened in the first AGE. The apocryphal is very clear about this first AGE/DAY.

As I said, you are putting a square into a circle. If the definition doesn't apply, don't FORCE IT onto something else. If it said light and darkness was separated on the first day before a sun or moon, it MEANS IT. If it doesn't fit your understanding, then look up the context, definitions and any other applicable material that applies.

Reread the scripture: the stuff in the heavens and earth, not the heaven and earth themselves, we're made in six "yom." Earth is not 6000 years old (using the simile of Paul,) and Yom does NOT always mean a day or specified period of time. Similarly, perfection in English has at least five different Hebrew words to meet specific context.

Moses was not sinless (perfect) in his generations, he was BLAMELESS - having not defiled his DNA.

Connotation matters as much as denoting, sometimes more depending.

 

[Queller]

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.)

Actually, geology reveals many destructions on the earth, not of the earth. If the earth was destroyed, there would be no evidence left behind.

 

[tatteredsoul]

I dunno: God must have been a little confused, or Moses was. In Genesis 2:4 it says God created the earth and heavens in a day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 contradicts Genesis 2:4 if you have noncontext.

Firstly, what is the your definition of day?

Second, why does it say day (singular) as opposed to days (plural... six to be exact)?

God created Earth and Heaven in the beginning - before time.

The act of God separating light from darkness denoted the first day.

 

[Queller]

"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!

Actually, the conflict is "let us tell man one thing then give him physical evidence of something completely different"

And it isn't brilliant, it's ignorant.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think you are misrepresenting the scientific developed history of the universe and life.

That's your choice to think that..

 

[Queller]

What evidence and how does it imply that?

Hundreds of different lines of evidence, from multiple branches of science, all arriving at approximately the same conclusion; an earth and a universe, that has existed for several billion years. Ice cores, lake varves, tree rings, carbon dating, multiple independent types of radioactive isotope decay measurement, cosmic microwave background radiation measurement, and others, all agree that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years.

 

[Queller]

Please be more specific...what concepts?

The concept of hundreds of millions of years of elapsed time.

 

[Queller]

Do you think that time failed to exist before the wrist watch?
I also used the term "solar day" which is a more specific definition.

How can you have a solar day with no sun?

Regardless, your question is sophomoric and totally off point.

Wrong. It doesn't require a 24 hour day, it requires a single rotation of the planet which is illuminated by a singular point of light.

Which did not exist until day 4.

Light was created day one. Were the days longer or shorter? Likely shorter, since the earth is slowing and likely has been since its creation.
My thoughts are that "light" became the sun, moon and stars on day four.

Those may be your thoughts but they are in complete defiance of scripture which states that God made the Sun and the Moon on Day 4.

We see this as the "Big Bang." Interestingly, science has determined that the universe rapidly expanded, but there was no blast pattern whatever. This, it was not random. It was designed.

Then why is it still expanding?

The evening and the morning were not eons, but days. Man is to work six days and rest on the seventh. The Lord made an example for all of us.

Yes, He did. Using allegory.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

The length of creation week does not date the earth.
They are seperate concepts.

 

[ScottA]

Actually, the conflict is "let us tell man one thing then give him physical evidence of something completely different"

And it isn't brilliant, it's ignorant.

So...it would appear.

But in order to believe that, one must reduce God to something less than all powerful and fully capable of making fools out of the wise, while saving the lost and the faithful.

Oh - that's right - He said that!