Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1-2 is trying to tell you about God's creative power, that he is the sole creator, .

is it also giving a timeline ?


Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made


Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

(details matter)

 

[lesliedellow]

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

I have seen that before, and, as I have said before, somebody should introduce him to Tremper Longman.

 

[BobRyan]

I have seen that before, and, as I have said before, somebody should introduce him to Tremper Longman.

It is entirely possible that James Barr does not consider Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. to be a "world class" university -- or maybe he just missed meeting with Tremper.

in any case -- it is helpful that the point about the 7 day creation week in Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11 is so obvious "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the LORD made"

 

[lesliedellow]

It is entirely possible that James Barr does not consider Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. to be a "world class" university -- or maybe he just missed meeting with Tremper.

Well, it is odd that a fundamentalist should want to quote James Barr in support of his case, because, in 1977, he wrote a 344 page long book attacking fundamentalism. I have got it in front of me right now.

 

[ScottA]

That's what one says when you have no rebuttal. Jesus went back to his rightful place in heaven, not David's corrupt throne.

You have left the providence of God to follow other gods, others whom He has not sent. You have had your rebuttal.

 

[Colter]

Allow me to illustrate -- evolution "stories easy enough to make up"



"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================





Wow -- "easy enough to make up stories" for evolutionists --

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

There's the ghost of Collin Paterson again

Genesis was very easy for the Hebrews to make up and even easier for some of the later generations of Priest to call the "Word of God" and charge a fee to be saved.

 

[Colter]

You have left the providence of God to follow other gods, others whom He has not sent. You have had your rebuttal.

There is only one God and you aren't it.

 

[Colter]

The real issue here is the understanding of the word,of God. The only way to believe in evolution is to fundamentally change or twist what the word of God says. Genesis and Exodus can't be any more clear than it is. In order to make evolution work you HAVE to change the scriptures.

I don't know where you came up with the word fundamentalism and applied it to Christianity, but if you mean that if I believe what the Bible says is true then I am fundamentalist then I guess I am guilty as charged.

If you don't believe the Bible is true then what do you put your faith in? How can you believe any of it? If you don't believe the Bible is true then how can you believe in Jesus. It all could be a made up,story. Jesus might never have said "I am the way the truth and the life. No,man comes to the Father but by me." if you don't believe what the Bible says then there might not be a heaven or salvation.

If you get ro,pick and choose what you want to believe you have just placed yourself in the position of determining what truth is and what parts of the Bible are real and what parts aren't. I don't think,they a good place to,be, especially when it is CLEAR what the Bible says.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You would have a point if the Bible were the Word of God.

 

[Look Up]

In the failure of Jesus to live up to the erroneous expectation of a Jewish Messiah, followers speculated after he left that Jesus would soon return to fulfill the apocalyptic destruction. They were wrong!

And anyone hearing Johns preaching would have understood him to mean the wrath was eminent, It wasn't and never will. John was simply baseing his thinking on Old Testiment influences like Daniel. Lots of genocide, wrath and destruction, huffing and puffing in the OT concept of deity. Jesus changed all that.

While I fear the digression, it may be worth a brief pause here to remember those who argue the siege and sack of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 66-70 constituted the wrath of God that fell on a Jerusalem that largely rejected their own Jewish Messiah (footnote also the suppressed Bar Kokbha rebellion ca. A.D. 132-135)--while others argue for a double fulfillment, with the latter coming in connection with the 2nd Advent. And since Rom. 1 has been cited, arguably there Paul argues among other things that the very vices (or sins) listed constitute evidence that God's wrathful judgment has fallen because "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (and similar wording amounting to idolatry). Meanwhile yes, even the disciples long got it wrong about what Jesus was about. In the face of crucifying the Son of God, who wouldn't have missed the point before the resurrection? P.S. By "eminent" I think you mean "imminent."

 

[Colter]

Hoghead1 and Colter have both stated that -- the Bible cannot be trusted because it makes statements they do not agree with.



Not true in the case of James Barr, Darwin, Dawkins, Collter, Hoghead1 - for them simply trashing the Bible is "the other option" -- then there is no need to twist-wrench-bend it. Just let it say what it says.

I think God can be trusted, but I don't trust the kind of institutional arrogance that killed Jesus, no.

 

[Colter]

While I fear the digression, it may be worth a brief pause here to remember those who argue the siege and sack of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 66-70 constituted the wrath of God that fell on a Jerusalem that largely rejected their own Jewish Messiah (footnote also the suppressed Bar Kokbha rebellion ca. A.D. 132-135)--while others argue for a double fulfillment, with the latter coming in connection with the 2nd Advent. And since Rom. 1 has been cited, arguably there Paul argues among other things that the very vices (or sins) listed constitute evidence that God's wrathful judgment has fallen because "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (and similar wording amounting to idolatry). Meanwhile yes, even the disciples long got it wrong about what Jesus was about. In the face of crucifying the Son of God, who wouldn't have missed the point before the resurrection? P.S. By "eminent" I think you mean "imminent."

Yes "imminent".

Jesus had warned the apostles to get out of Jerusalem when the days of Gentile vengeance fell upon the false prophets. The context of Johns wrath would have been in line with much larger destruction.

 

[ScottA]

I think God can be trusted, but I don't trust the kind of institutional arrogance that killed Jesus, no.

If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, do you not also believe that He declared that such things were "finished"? How then is it that you do not believe that He has also made good on His promise to never leave nor forsake us during these last times of the gentiles?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I take alot of what science says like a grain of salt. Yes, I believe the earth is round. Gravity is real and so. That stuff is obvious. But other things they say like the universe has been around billions of years, we came from apes...etc I don't believe. Maybe scientists are smart. But believing a scientist on everything they say is basically saying they are smarter then God. God who is the Creator... the ultimate scientists you could say. And whats sad is if aliens were real (I know they are not) and came down with fancy technology, science would change alot of their views yet again.

Science changes its mind alot. But God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. What He says is fact. What science says is fact, but in the future sometimes changed. Or in alot of cases theories that aren't fully provable. I always tell people "You say you can prove things are real. Such as gravity. If I drop this apple it falls. But in space it floats. I can see the evidence. But with this dinosaur bone here you say its like 65,000,000 million years old. I don't see the evidence this time. I just see a guess. Or a reading from a machine that can date it. A machine made by man, who is not really all that smart. How do I know its accurate? Time travel into the past and show me 65 million years ago. If you can't then your machine and you may be flawed and thus I don't believe you!".

 

[BobRyan]

The real issue here is the understanding of the word,of God.

Hoghead1 and Colter have both stated that -- the Bible cannot be trusted because it makes statements they do not agree with.

The only way to believe in evolution is to fundamentally change or twist what the word of God says.

Not true in the case of James Barr, Darwin, Dawkins, Collter, Hoghead1 - for them simply trashing the Bible is "the other option" -- then there is no need to twist-wrench-bend it. Just let it say what it says.

I think God can be trusted,

Same here - so when He claims to author the Bible - we can believe His Word rather than continually trashing it for any junk-science guesswork that happens to pass by.

I think God can be trusted, but I don't trust the kind of institutional arrogance that killed Jesus, no.

Notice that in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus claims God is the author. The same Jewish organization that killed Jesus - was all about killing the Apostles as well - yet they write to us -- and you join the Jews in condemning the Apostles??

 

[Colter]

If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, do you not also believe that He declared that such things were "finished"? How then is it that you do not believe that He has also made good on His promise to never leave nor forsake us during these last times of the gentiles?

I don't see the connection between this and our earlier exchange about Jesus fulfilling the Jews concert is a Jewish Messiah?

 

[BobRyan]

I take alot of what science says like a grain of salt. Yes, I believe the earth is round. Gravity is real and so. That stuff is obvious.

As it turns out - in the case of "real science" like Chemistry, Physics, observable biology etc - you can trust what you see and they don't through much junk-science your way.

But when it comes the junk-science of blind-faith-evolutionism - well you will find there lots of "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" and you will find their own atheist evolutionist professors admitting to a great many of the flaws in that religious body of beliefs.

 

[Colter]

Same here - so when He claims to author the Bible - we can believe His Word rather than continually trashing it for any junk-science guesswork that happens to pass by.

Notice that in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus claims God is the author.

Show me where God claimed to write the bible? I see holy men claiming to speak on behalf of God. The people who mistreated Jesus, the apostles,
prophets actually thought they were doing a service to God.

 

[BobRyan]

Show me where God claimed to write the bible? I see holy men claiming to speak on behalf of God. The people who mistreated Jesus, the apostles,
prophets actually thought they were doing a service to God.

Starting with Mark 7 --

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Commandment of God = Moses said = Word of God.... all given in contrast to the "Commandment of men" and "tradition of men"

 

[Colter]

Starting with Mark 7 --

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Commandment of God = Moses said = Word of God.... all given in contrast to the "Commandment of men" and "tradition of men"

That's men writing as if God is talking. It's called preacher speak.


Show me where God claimed to write the bible? I see holy men claiming to speak on behalf of God. The people who mistreated Jesus, the apostles,
prophets actually thought they were doing a service to God.

 

[rjs330]

I think God can be trusted, but I don't trust the kind of institutional arrogance that killed Jesus, no.

Which God?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk