Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

Science by definition and observation is never 100% correct and it is ever changing... why would anyone stake Biblical principles and doubt God's Word over something that is never really right?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The problem is it wasn't God who wrote the creation story, it was exiled Hebrew Holy men writing, or rewriting, editing and redacting, older writings, from the vantage point of the Babylonian re-captivity, the single most devastating event to Israelite nationalist pride in the evolution of Judaism.

So from the start a false dichotomy is established. A pseudo-biographical story written for the consumption of the scattered Israelite audience became the writings of God in the minds of subsequent generations of the priest class. It became the basis of church governments authority.

On that basis, when one disagrees with the holy men's narratives, they are made to be disagreeing with God himself when in fact we disagree with the speculative, historical worldview of bronze age preachers.

That doesn't sound very "copy and pasted" from your sects book of "knowledge"...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account. It begins by saying, "Thus the Heavens and earth were completed in their vast array." After Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden, it says that the Lord had formed the birds and the land animals which were brought to Adam to name. It says nothing whatever of any new creation.
The atheist claim of two conflicting creation accounts is disproved by a cursory reading at a seventh grade level. You seriously need to pay more attention to the Scriptures and less attention to the detractors. Make no mistake, the false teachers will account for trying to lead believers away from the Bible on the day of judgment.

See, you reinterpret literal words to remove inconsistencies. The Genesis 2 account plainly makes the animals created after Adam.

Gen 2:18-19
8 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

So you reinterpret scripture by somehow making this creation of animals to happen before Adam when clearly the narrative says otherwise. You think you are justified in doing this. After all, contradictions must not exist . . . right? Well, you should allow the rest of us to also so interpret scripture as to remove contradiction with evolution. Because we know evolution has actually happened, it has been scientifically proven. (using "proven" in the sense used in a court of law where the preponderence of evidence serves to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt.)

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science by definition and observation is never 100% correct and it is ever changing... why would anyone stake Biblical principles and doubt God's Word over something that is never really right?

Science is often 100% correct. Of course science continues to advance, but you seek to turn science back from where it has already advanced. This attempt to turn science back will continue to fail.

 

[Colter]

That doesn't sound very "copy and pasted" from your sects book of "knowledge"...

That's because I wrote it.

 

[KWCrazy]

However, it is definitely a question whether your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

More baloney from the fountain of misinformation.
You talk about people misinterpreting things and yet you post absolutely nothing to validate your claim but your opinions. What an extremely dishonest posting style.

I hold it is a compete and total misrepresentation of the life of Christ to assume he was a science teacher.

STRAWMAN! Name one person in the history of the earth who ever called Christ a science teacher.

The fact of the matter is that you are going on an anti-intellectual fundamentalist version of the Bible.

The fact of the matter that other can calling other people names and pretending you know something you don't, I have yet to see you make a post that is even close to being well reasoned. All you have is other people's words which you keep repeating and a complete rejection of the Scriptures.
You are not a Biblical scholar. You are not an intellectual. You've made scores of claims you can't back up and you've attacked the Scriptures at every opportunity. You insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with you and frankly, it's rather appalling.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, you need to pay more attention to careful biblical scholarship. Because biblical scholars disagree with your views that does not mean they are all atheists.

Of the dozen or so "Biblical scholars" (posers) I've seen on this site, I've yet to see one who knew anything about the Scriptures. I'm thinking that there must be a website somewhere that encourages people to crash Christian websites posing as Biblical scholars to try and undermine the faith of Christians by lying about the Bible. Of all the times I've challenged you to validate your opinions with Scripture you've never been able to.

Demonstrate some knowledge of the Scriptures and validate your posts or don't address me again. I've been abundantly patient, but i'm tired of the same uninformed uneducated drivel.

 

[KWCrazy]

Only to Satan would Hog's comments be humorous...

And familiar.

 

[KWCrazy]

See, you reinterpret literal words to remove inconsistencies. The Genesis 2 account plainly makes the animals created after Adam.

I'm sorry you have problems understanding this.
Ask your pastor this Sunday.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Ex 20:11 is legal code as you point out - it is not myth, fiction, poetry, symbolism, parable - it is straight-up legal code. We are told in Ex 20:8-11 that the 7 day week of man - is directly attributed to the 7 day week of creation - where 'evening and morning" are the units of time governing each day of that week.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

You don't believe the Bible is an accurate witness of the timeline that IT GIVES for creation OR that it is an accurate witness for the virgin birth account that IT GIVES or an accurate witness of the ascension of Christ, or world -wide flood or pretty much anything that an atheist might object to -- and yet you present that as if Bible believing Christians are the "exception' in not doubting the text the same way you do.

How is that "accurate"??

IT has been pointed out to you repeatedly that it is not only Bible believing Christians that admit to what the text says - but as it turns out - the atheist/agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies at all "world class universities" - admit to what the text says -- and you yourself have at times admitted to what the text says - though claiming you don't believe it is accurate in what it is claiming.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm sorry you have problems understanding this.
Ask your pastor this Sunday.

I'm not having any trouble understanding the plain fact that the literal words are in contradiction, anyone can see that. The resolution is to realize that one or both are not to be interpreted literally. Or you can accept that they are a contradiction. Those are the choices the literal language leaves you.

I'm sure that is very uncomfortable for you but there you are.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

Its probably already been said but; who's 6 days is being described here?

For an observer outside the universe, observing the beginning of the universe, it might indeed take 6 days for the universe to be ordered from the disorder.

For an observer from within the same creation, however, it might appear that it took 14 billion years or so for the same series of events to take place.

This is due to fact that time and space co-exist within the universe, began to exist at the beginning of the universe and expanded in relativity. Space itself effects the apparent passing of time. As space expands so does time (within the created system).

I do believe God when He says the earth was created in 6 days, however this does not need to conflict with the perception of long ages that is apparent from the perspective of the created beings within the universe.

Neither perspective is a lie or mistaken, neither is allegorical and both can be taken seriously.

 

[lesliedellow]

Try going to YouTube and searching for the name John Walton.

 

[BobRyan]

Its probably already been said but; who's 6 days is being described here?

For an observer outside the universe, observing the beginning of the universe, it might indeed take 6 days for the universe to be ordered from the disorder.

The observer is Moses in Genesis 1-2:3 with the reference point of earth.

But in Ex 20:11 legal code it is God - and they both claim to see the same thing.

For an observer from within the same creation, however, it might appear that it took 14 billion years or so for the same series of events to take place.

You have to read 4 billion years "into the text" - it is not there at all. And the text of both Genesis 1-2:3 and Ex 20:11 was written for "readers within the same creation" -

And evening and morning are specific to the rotation of this one planet - the Universe does not have night/day cycles.


Injecting a counter-idea into the text to fit an a-priori bias brought to the text - is eisegesis - not exegesis.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not having any trouble understanding the plain fact that the literal words are in contradiction, anyone can see that. The resolution is to realize that one or both are not to be interpreted literally. .

There is no contradiction at all. The legal code of Ex 20:11 fits perfectly with Gen 1:2-2:3 account.

 

[Kenny'sID]

For an observer outside the universe, observing the beginning of the universe, it might indeed take 6 days for the universe to be ordered from the disorder.

Sounds like you are almost saying the bible was not written for those on the planet earth.

Surely God was smart enough to know how we were going to read his word, so if that is the way it went, seems like a mighty tricky thing for him to do. Could be he had his reasons, but that doesn't fit either because there doesn't seem to be a lot of tricky stuff in the bible where God messes with us by making cryptic comments, knowing full well we will take it another way. Any confusion on what he means anywhere in the Bible is generally brought on by ourselves for our own agenda.

Looks to me anyway like he was very clear with what he did tell us. Did he tell us everything, IDK? I would say no, if for no other reason, because the Dinosaurs don't seem to fit in this age at all. Arnold Murray used to speak of another earth age, but he also said things that made me not take him too seriously. Sure the Bible does mention a very few possible references to Dino's, but it's just not nearly enough. Creation mentions nothing specific about them, and all though the bible mentions many animals by name and makes reference to them often enough, there is virtually nothing on Dino's.

Dinosaurs were definitely there but they are not even named like the other animals...we had to name them as we dug them up.

It's as if there was another age before this one, maybe even an experimental age? Testing life? Sounds stupid, but I can't think of any other reason for the Dinosaurs, unless one believes in evolution and they were just a stage in that, which I do not.

Yeah, seems something is definitely missing.

 

[Colter]

Its probably already been said but; who's 6 days is being described here?

For an observer outside the universe, observing the beginning of the universe, it might indeed take 6 days for the universe to be ordered from the disorder.

For an observer from within the same creation, however, it might appear that it took 14 billion years or so for the same series of events to take place.

This is due to fact that time and space co-exist within the universe, began to exist at the beginning of the universe and expanded in relativity. Space itself effects the apparent passing of time. As space expands so does time (within the created system).

I do believe God when He says the earth was created in 6 days, however this does not need to conflict with the perception of long ages that is apparent from the perspective of the created beings within the universe.

Neither perspective is a lie or mistaken, neither is allegorical and both can be taken seriously.

It's simply a speculative creation story written by biased Hebrew priest FOR the scattered Israelite audience. They drew upon existing Mesopotamian lore in converting secular history into a miraculous fiction wherein they figured prominently of coarse.

 

[Anguspure]

The observer is Moses in Genesis 1-2:3 with the reference point of earth.

But in Ex 20:11 legal code it is God - and they both claim to see the same thing.

Really? My understanding of the Bible is that it is our God who is telling the story, and that it is God who observed the 6 days of creation.

The Rabbinacal understanding of the Torah is that every letter was dictated to Moses by the Creator and as such Moses observed nothing but simply transcribed the text he was given.

Certainly there is nothing within the text of the first 5 books of the Bible that would suggest that Moses was an observer of anything that he had written (excepting the bits in which he played a first hand part in, that is).

Where was Moses when God created the heavens and the earth? Where was Moses when God called forth the starry host?

You have to read 4 billion years "into the text" - it is not there at all. And the text of both Genesis 1-2:3 and Ex 20:11 was written for "readers within the same creation" -

The text of Exodus was written so that the mortal created beings could follow the example of the Eternal Creator.

The Creator created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so, as His children, so should we.

And evening and morning are specific to the rotation of this one planet - the Universe does not have night/day cycles.

The words for evening (ereb) and morning (baqar) may also be thought of as defining intervals through which the Creator brought about order from the disorder.

The word evening (ereb) has the meaning of disorder and chaos, whereas the word morning (baqar) implies order coming out of the disorder.

The word day (yowm) is also non-specific as in many languages and does not (in the Bible) necessarily imply one Solar day, as you suggest. Incidentally The word Yowm can also mean hot.

 

[Anguspure]

Sounds like you are almost saying the bible was not written for those on the planet earth.

The Bible was written to be explored by intelligent people who realise that the surface of the text is not all that is to be understood and that diligent study and application will yield depths that are not apparent to those who wish to stay shallow. Much like our God really

Surely God was smart enough to know how we were going to read his word, so if that is the way it went, seems like a mighty tricky thing for him to do.

Or maybe it's not really all that important. The way of salvation (within the text) is blindingly obvious to those who seek it and for those of us who have accepted the ultimate expression of Love from God Himself, well perhaps we are all expected to extend the same Love and grace to all as Our Father in heaven does and not get to worried about how another might read into what we have done.

Could be he had his reasons,

No doubt.

but that doesn't fit either because there doesn't seem to be a lot of tricky stuff in the bible where God messes with us by making cryptic comments, knowing full well we will take it another way. Any confusion on what he means anywhere in the Bible is generally brought on by ourselves for our own agenda.

We are terrestrial and finite. He is Metaphysical and eternal.
There's bound to be a bit of misunderstanding for those that lack it, don't you think?

Looks to me anyway like he was very clear with what he did tell us.

Yup: He said follow my example, lay down your life.

Did he tell us everything, IDK? I would say no, if for no other reason, because the Dinosaurs don't seem to fit in this age at all. Arnold Murray used to speak of another earth age, but he also said things that made me not take him too seriously. Sure the Bible does mention a very few possible references to Dino's, but it's just not nearly enough. Creation mentions nothing specific about them, and all though the bible mentions many animals by name and makes reference to them often enough, there is virtually nothing on Dino's.
Dinosaurs were definitely there but they are not even named like the other animals...we had to name them as we dug them up.

Easier just to accept Him at His word (with a modicum of understanding), I think.

It's as if there was another age before this one, maybe even an experimental age? Testing life? Sounds stupid, but I can't think of any other reason for the Dinosaurs, unless one believes in evolution and they were just a stage in that, which I do not.

Now you slide down the slippery path of the extra Biblical.
If we say, however, that the process that appears to take 14 billion years from mans perspective, actually took 6 days from the Creators perspective, then the age of the dinosaurs can last whatever millions of years from the perspective of science but is only a few hours within the scope of creation for the Creator and is then swallowed up in a relatively irrelevant (but not uninteresting) detail of the process through which God created the heavens and the earth.

Yeah, seems something is definitely missing.

I would call the "something" that is missing "understanding" and perhaps "intelligence".