Origins of the Universe and Science investigated

[Derek Meyer]

I will start the weekend with the last picture for the week.
But, lets first see what we found so far.
1. Matter was strewn throughout the Solar system
2. Gravitational points started to collect at positions where the planets and moons will shape from a "foundations laid by God" into accretion of proto-planets.
3. One of these planets was a shapeless collection of Water, matter and Gas, and due to gravity changed into a sphere, and then into a mud ball on its turn developed a Land and ocean.
4.Time started to develop when light shone onto the earth.

Now that we have this description we can go over to the next step of understanding Genesis.
A. Whatever happened with the Earth also happened with all the other heavenly bodies.
B. This will include the Sun.
C. The Earth was in an area within the nebular cloud where water, Matter and Gas existed, but there was another larger proto-planet right in the middle of this baby Proto-solar system. The Sun.
Due to it situated in the centre of the nebular cloud, it collected much more matter than all the other planets, 99% of it all.
D. This proto-star was at first only one gigantic dust ball but eventually collected such a lot of whatever there was, that it started to fall into its own gravity and nuclear fusion kicked off!
E. The sun made light in the Solar system for the first time. "God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT!
F. at this time the solar system was still very "dirty" with residue of dust not collected by the Sun and other planets and only shone with a dim red glow.
G. the Bible describes 3 more days, and then says:




And this is what happened on the 4th day!
1. The Sun blasted out in full nuclear fusion and lit up the Solar System, shining into the Earth's atmosphere, reflecting sunlight from the Moon, and from all the Planets we call stars.
2. The Solar System cleared its dust particles due to the Sun's radiation, and the stars from the Milky way galaxy, and other Galaxies also shined into the Atmosphere of the Earth!
3. This firmament of the heaven is the end of our atmosphere, and not outer space, and the Greater and Lesser lights are not the Sun and Moon and Stars that was placed within the Atmosphere, but the LIGHT OF THE SUN AND MOON AND PLANETS AND STARS that shone INTO THE ATMOSPHERE!
4. The Bible is very clear in this regard, because in stead of calling it the Sun, Moon and Stars, it uses the words Luminaries, and Greater light and Lesser light.
5. Some people will say, But it says:[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, He made the Stars also.
6. That is only due to poor translation. The words are ..."God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, the Stars also." which clearly show that the Stars was not made on the 4th day, but together with the Sun and Moon also shined at night with the Moon.

here is a picture taken from Nigel Henbests book, The origins of the Solar System.
View attachment 218602

I took the liberty to place the Biblical words in his atheist description and love the fact that Atheists' artistic representations can be placed in the KJV!
Enjoy your weekend.

 

[Colter]

I don’t disagree with you necessarily but our little convo within this thread seems to have gone off on tangents. What I was getting at originally is the objection to violence in the OT as in your list - I know these are things a lot of people find difficult, I know I certainly did initially. My question is how else could the continuity of the people of God, however imperfect, have been maintained? How would you have done it, for example?

* I see Judaism as an evolved religion, mostly human. Between Abraham-----------> and Jesus, lots of exaggeration and biased history revisionism.

* All religious men do battle until they see the futility of it.

* The battles that the Israelites fought, won or lost, were interpreted through the lens of their own human ignorance; victories and defeats credited to God.

* The flood was a genealogical device used by the Hebrew priest class who found it impossible to trace their bloodlines back to a much older Adam and Eve (a story they appropriated from Mesopotamian lore). The flood filled the gap! God never has, does not currently, nor will he EVER regret something he has done, is doing, or will ever do! In other words, God don't drown the whole earth, so that "violence" can be se aside.

* Other acts of violence in the Bible, credited to God, were deliberately exaggerated or never happened. God doesn't send fire down from heaven and burn people up, put naturally occurring plagues in communities, kill every other kid, send swarms of locust, turn rivers red etc. All fabrications for effect. The priest class knew that primitive man wasn't going to be subdued by a wimpy God! Even today preachers use threats of eternal torture in hell to control people. Apparently some people need that.

 

[Tom 1]

* I see Judaism as an evolved religion, mostly human. Between Abraham-----------> and Jesus, lots of exaggeration and biased history revisionism.

* All religious men do battle until they see the futility of it.

* The battles that the Israelites fought, won or lost, were interpreted through the lens of their own human ignorance; victories and defeats credited to God.

* The flood was a genealogical device used by the Hebrew priest class who found it impossible to trace their bloodlines back to a much older Adam and Eve (a story they appropriated from Mesopotamian lore). The flood filled the gap! God never has, does not currently, nor will he EVER regret something he has done, is doing, or will ever do! In other words, God don't drown the whole earth, so that "violence" can be se aside.

* Other acts of violence in the Bible, credited to God, were deliberately exaggerated or never happened. God doesn't send fire down from heaven and burn people up, put naturally occurring plagues in communities, kill every other kid, send swarms of locust, turn rivers red etc. All fabrications for effect. The priest class knew that primitive man wasn't going to be subdued by a wimpy God! Even today preachers use threats of eternal torture in hell to control people. Apparently some people need that.

I think that’s a little jumbled, too many assumptions and too much guesswork for my liking. But that’s how you see it so fair enough, I don’t agree. Too general to respond to more specifically, so I’ll leave it there for my side.

 

[Piet Strydom]

* Other acts of violence in the Bible, credited to God, were deliberately exaggerated or never happened. God doesn't send fire down from heaven and burn people up, put naturally occurring plagues in communities, kill every other kid, send swarms of locust, turn rivers red etc. All fabrications for effect. The priest class knew that primitive man wasn't going to be subdued by a wimpy God! Even today preachers use threats of eternal torture in hell to control people. Apparently some people need that.

Colter,
Please explain why you are attempting to derail my thread with these posts?
Dont you think it will be much more civilized to open a thread where you can discuss your problems to your hearts content?

I am well aware that Atheists practices such behavior, and so far you dont deceive me as a Christian.
I do get the impression that you are at least an Atheist, but due to my experience over the past 15 years on blogging sites, only "comparative Religion proponent Muslims" does what you do. Even your arguments comes out of Ahmad Deedad's publications, which was anyhow taken up by the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" website who is Atheist.

Please come out of the closet sir,
Which is it, Muslim or Atheist?

Be as it may, I do not have a problem with someone critisizing my point of view, but I dont like your methodology of interruption of points that has nothing to do with the topic.
Grteetings

 

[Colter]

Colter,
Please explain why you are attempting to derail my thread with these posts?
Dont you think it will be much more civilized to open a thread where you can discuss your problems to your hearts content?

I am well aware that Atheists practices such behavior, and so far you dont deceive me as a Christian.
I do get the impression that you are at least an Atheist, but due to my experience over the past 15 years on blogging sites, only "comparative Religion proponent Muslims" does what you do. Even your arguments comes out of Ahmad Deedad's publications, which was anyhow taken up by the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" website who is Atheist.

Please come out of the closet sir,
Which is it, Muslim or Atheist?

Be as it may, I do not have a problem with someone critisizing my point of view, but I dont like your methodology of interruption of points that has nothing to do with the topic.
Grteetings

I'm a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. But I don't believe everything in the books written by the people who killed Jesus and I certainly don't believe everything they said about themselves so we have a difference of opinion.

Your accusations against me are untrue.

Has it ever occurred to you that they people who wrote such a spectacular history of themselves may be the "wolves in sheep's clothing"? Simple observations of the earth contradict the YEC story. Common sense rejects others.

If you reject radiometric dating then you wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

 

[NobleMouse]

He didn’t say what your are implying, i.e a literal, 6 24hr day creative act. To understand what God is teaching through Genesis, you have to understand the symbolic language, the importance of numbers as symbols, the chaistic structures, and the cultural context. Those provide the way in for us to understand what it meant to the people it was originally presented to. Without that understanding, you are simply creating your own meaning based on your interpretation of the English translation, read by you in the 21st C

What does the text say, in English? What does the text say, in Hebrew? Also what are your credentials to say it is symbolic, is this your opinion or backed up by formal education on the subject? I want to be clear here, I'm not asking to come across as attacking your character, but do want to point out that most arguments all of us make here in the forum are opinion-based.

From the documentary, Is Genesis History, Dr Steve Boyd speaks about Genesis and he indicates that the text is narrative (not symbolic). Along with various other degrees, Boyd has a a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. While citing his view on Genesis doesn't make it irrefutably true, it certainly carries more weight than that of our uneducated opinions here in this forum. See additional resource on the matter:
The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story | The Institute for Creation Research

Ultimately, Jesus referred to it as a historical text, as did various OT and NT writers. Nobody reads day 1 with evening and morning, day 2 with evening and morning, day 3 with... and thinks, "oh, this must be billions of years"....... unless they have an alternate agenda they are looking to push because they believe the words of imperfect men who weren't there over the words of a perfect God who was there.

Also, my question still remains standing to anyone here in opposition to the authenticity and historicity of God's word in Genesis: Can an all-power omnipotent God create all of creation in the time and way He said He did it? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[Colter]

What does the text say, in English? What does the text say, in Hebrew? Also what are your credentials to say it is symbolic, is this your opinion or backed up by formal education on the subject? I want to be clear here, I'm not asking to come across as attacking your character, but do want to point out that most arguments all of us make here in the forum are opinion-based.

From the documentary, Is Genesis History, Dr Steve Boyd speaks about Genesis and he indicates that the text is narrative (not symbolic). Along with various other degrees, Boyd has a a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. While citing his view on Genesis doesn't make it irrefutably true, it certainly carries more weight than that of our uneducated opinions here in this forum. See additional resource on the matter:
The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story | The Institute for Creation Research

Ultimately, Jesus referred to it as a historical text, as did various OT and NT writers. Nobody reads day 1 with evening and morning, day 2 with evening and morning, day 3 with... and thinks, "oh, this must be billions of years"....... unless they have an alternate agenda they are looking to push because they believe the words of imperfect men who weren't there over the words of a perfect God who was there.

Also, my question still remains standing to anyone here in opposition to the authenticity and historicity of God's word in Genesis: Can an all-power omnipotent God create all of creation in the time and way He said He did it? A yes or no will suffice.

The most educated theologians of Jesus' day rejected him! Judaism, and it's many brilliant theologians, have rejected him ever sense. The same brilliant, educated, elite priest class rejected the prophets as well. 1 Phd or 9 Phd's doesn't make false things true.

The creator used the technique of evolution to create life as we know it. The earth and the laws of physics that govern the material world bear no resemblance to the story that the Israelites created.

God cannot do the ungodlike thing. He cannot make square circles nor create evil that is inherently good.

 

[Tom 1]

What does the text say, in English? What does the text say, in Hebrew? Also what are your credentials to say it is symbolic, is this your opinion or backed up by formal education on the subject? I want to be clear here, I'm not asking to come across as attacking your character, but do want to point out that most arguments all of us make here in the forum are opinion-based.

From the documentary, Is Genesis History, Dr Steve Boyd speaks about Genesis and he indicates that the text is narrative (not symbolic). Along with various other degrees, Boyd has a a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. While citing his view on Genesis doesn't make it irrefutably true, it certainly carries more weight than that of our uneducated opinions here in this forum. See additional resource on the matter:
The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story | The Institute for Creation Research

Ultimately, Jesus referred to it as a historical text, as did various OT and NT writers. Nobody reads day 1 with evening and morning, day 2 with evening and morning, day 3 with... and thinks, "oh, this must be billions of years"....... unless they have an alternate agenda they are looking to push because they believe the words of imperfect men who weren't there over the words of a perfect God who was there.

Also, my question still remains standing to anyone here in opposition to the authenticity and historicity of God's word in Genesis: Can an all-power omnipotent God create all of creation in the time and way He said He did it? A yes or no will suffice.

I think you’re mixing ideas here - the genesis creation account isn’t either a narrative or ‘symbolic’ in the sense of being a symbolic representation of something, it’s a narrative which has the purpose of conveying meaning, not science, a narrative that contains some figurative language and a complex literary structure that both support and reinforce the meaning being conveyed. The purpose of the narrative is in the meaning of it as it relates to God as the creator, and to us, as the created, not to how the process of creation took place in physical, practical terms. It’s purpose is to provide readers with information about God, and information about man in relation to God, and to explain what this information means for all mankind. This information has different layers, which any decent commentary can help you to explore. What reason is there to take it as a scientific account? What would be the point of that? That’s what I don’t get when encountering these kind of discussions.

 

[Tom 1]

Also, my question still remains standing to anyone here in opposition to the authenticity and historicity of God's word in Genesis: Can an all-power omnipotent God create all of creation in the time and way He said He did it? A yes or no will suffice.

I don't get the purpose of this question - you could equally ask 'can an omnipotent God create all of the conditions that lead to life over a period of time' or any other question of that sort, what does a yes or no answer tell you?

Ultimately, Jesus referred to it as a historical text, as did various OT and NT writers. Nobody reads day 1 with evening and morning, day 2 with evening and morning, day 3 with... and thinks, "oh, this must be billions of years"....... unless they have an alternate agenda they are looking to push because they believe the words of imperfect men who weren't there over the words of a perfect God who was there.

What agenda? You're making an assumption here that people who don't agree with your interpretation have some sort of agenda, what are your reasons for that? Why did e.g Augustine and other early thinkers reject the idea of a literal 6-day creation? What was their agenda?

The literal days notion is one I find difficult to understand. How do you have 24 hour days when the text, if taken literally, has the celestial bodies being formed only on 'day' 4? If the earth is 'formless and empty', not a rotating sphere orbiting a star (a star that doesn't yet exist) on day 1, what constitutes a 'day' in that context, what is meant by a day when there is no formed earth and there is no sun or moon? As the word Yom can be taken to mean a number of different time periods depending on context, what would be the reason for taking it to mean a 24hr day in the absence of the earth, sun, moon and stars?

As one example of language I would take to be figurative, what is your take on vs 2:

'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters'

By taking this literally would you say that the Spirit is being described here as an actual physically manifested presence that is literally 'hovering' over deep water? What is the darkness that is referred to? Literal/figurative? What do you take to be the literal meaning here?

 

[NobleMouse]

I will tell God, if he even asks, that I didn’t believe the Hebrews flood story, not because of how silly it is, but it portrays him, God, as “regretting” his creation. That’s should be a hint that it’s a human concoction apart from the absurdity of the story.

I will tell God that I never, not for a fraction of a second, beloved that he instructed soldiers to kill war captives, men women and children but keeping the Virgin girl children for themselves!!!!!!!

I wish more believers had moral courage!

The Bible books were written long after Moses lived, where are their citations??????

If Moses wrote any of Genesis at Mt Sini, what scripture books were they using in Egypt? Before Egypt? Did Abraham write scripture? Where is that? What happened to the secular history books mentioned in the OT?

I think these are all good evidence of critical thought on your part (ex. What kind of God would regret creating man?). These are all things we have to come to grips with in our faith. Does God have the right to destroy that which He has created? You are aware "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5), yes? God is love, but He is also just (this is doctrine). By the line of reasoning you are using, one would just as well ask how God could send anyone to hell. Jesus said, "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42). Judgment and hell are clearly part of theological doctrine.

I and others here are glad to help and share our personal insight on what scripture teaches, and back it up with what is largely held by those who are formally educated in the field, if that is your interest. If; however, you are here just trolling about and looking to argue against the inerrancy of scripture on the basis of your opinion and references to pagan texts, know that your arguments are hollow and will be dismissed accordingly.

 

[NobleMouse]

I don't get the purpose of this question - you could equally ask 'can an omnipotent God create all of the conditions that lead to life over a period of time' or any other question of that sort, what does a yes or no answer tell you?

Still dodging around the question. What's the text say Tom? Does it say days or billions of years?

What agenda? You're making an assumption here that people who don't agree with your interpretation have some sort of agenda, what are your reasons for that? Why did e.g Augustine and other early thinkers reject the idea of a literal 6-day creation? What was their agenda?

An agenda to push the notion that the universe is very old and life evolved through evolution rather than God creating complex life like we have today, from the beginning. One could hardly say this is my interpretation, give your Bible to a random 3rd grader on the street and ask them to read Genesis out loud and even they'll tell you it's talking about days. Is what Augustine thought in the Bible? Doesn't matter what Augustine and others thought, what did God say?

The literal days notion is one I find difficult to understand. How do you have 24 hour days when the text, if taken literally, has the celestial bodies being formed only on 'day' 4? If the earth is 'formless and empty', not a rotating sphere orbiting a star (a star that doesn't yet exist) on day 1, what constitutes a 'day' in that context, what is meant by a day when there is no formed earth and there is no sun or moon? As the word Yom can be taken to mean a number of different time periods depending on context, what would be the reason for taking it to mean a 24hr day in the absence of the earth, sun, moon and stars?

Why do you find it difficult to understand, it's what it says. All of your arguments here are based upon naturalistic assumptions. If an all-powerful, omnipotent God speaks and things happen, we have now left the realm of natural and entered the realm of supernatural. By definition, this is miraculous (in the same sense Jesus raising people from the dead, giving sight to the blind, and healing the sick is 'miraculous'). Science cannot explain this because science is decidedly confined to that which only naturally occurs. Your argument against yom in the context of sequenced numerals and the context of evening and morning falls flat (if for no other reason than a guy who actually has a Ph.D in the subject and many years of experience studying the text and working with other leading Hebraists across the world all agree it means an ordinary 24-hr day). Setting that aside as if that's not enough, Jesus said we were created male and female in the beginning (Matthew 19:4)... same as we're told in Genesis. If you can't believe what Jesus actually said, then there is no line of logic, no reasoning, no getting through. You either believe what Jesus said or not, that's up to you. You trust your eternal future on the basis of of what He said, why don't you trust what he has told you about your past?

As one example of language I would take to be figurative, what is your take on vs 2:

'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters'

By taking this literally would you say that the Spirit is being described here as an actual physically manifested presence that is literally 'hovering' over deep water? What is the darkness that is referred to? Literal/figurative? What do you take to be the literal meaning here?

Yes here in verse 2 we're reading about the broadly described events of creation taking place on day 1 (the events of creation for day 1 encompass Genesis 1:1-5). There is not a lot of detailed information here, but we know on day 1 that light is created, the beginning of the formation of the earth (and the heavens) is occurring, and day and night are defined. Specifically to verse 2, the earth is made up of water and is formless/void. Void is often regarded here as conveying chaos. As I've stated, this is the beginning state of the earth. We could speculate what is contained in the water and what it means to be chaotic, but this is not explicitly given - though entertaining to ponder. The state of the earth here is affirmed in 2 Peter 3:5-6, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." Now God's spirit was hovering over the waters [of the earth I'll add]. God is spirit (see John 4:24). So while we're not given the minutia of details of everything, this is (broadly stated) what took place on day 1. This is what God said, so.... it's what happened.

I'm including other references to scripture above so you can see these are not my words, not my thoughts, the truth and historicity of God's creation is affirmed throughout the Bible. If we had mixed messages where Genesis said one thing, but Jesus says something different, or Jesus says one thing, but is contradicted elsewhere then we'd have reason to question. Whether you are reading your English translation or the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek there are no conflicting stories around the events of creation.

 

[Tom 1]

}you

Still dodging around the question. What's the text say Tom? Does it say days or billions of years?


An agenda to push the notion that the universe is very old and life evolved through evolution rather than God creating complex life like we have today, from the beginning. One could hardly say this is my interpretation, give your Bible to a random 3rd grader on the street and ask them to read Genesis out loud and even they'll tell you it's talking about days. Is what Augustine thought in the Bible? Doesn't matter what Augustine and others thought, what did God say?


Why do you find it difficult to understand, it's what it says. All of your arguments here are based upon naturalistic assumptions. If an all-powerful, omnipotent God speaks and things happen, we have now left the realm of natural and entered the realm of supernatural. By definition, this is miraculous (in the same sense Jesus raising people from the dead, giving sight to the blind, and healing the sick is 'miraculous'). Science cannot explain this because science is decidedly confined to that which only naturally occurs. Your argument against yom in the context of sequenced numerals and the context of evening and morning falls flat (if for no other reason than a guy who actually has a Ph.D in the subject and many years of experience studying the text and working with other leading Hebraists across the world all agree it means an ordinary 24-hr day). Setting that aside as if that's not enough, Jesus said we were created male and female in the beginning (Matthew 19:4)... same as we're told in Genesis. If you can't believe what Jesus actually said, then there is no line of logic, no reasoning, no getting through. You either believe what Jesus said or not, that's up to you. You trust your eternal future on the basis of of what He said, why don't you trust what he has told you about your past?


Yes here in verse 2 we're reading about the broadly described events of creation taking place on day 1 (the events of creation for day 1 encompass Genesis 1:1-5). There is not a lot of detailed information here, but we know on day 1 that light is created, the beginning of the formation of the earth (and the heavens) is occurring, and day and night are defined. Specifically to verse 2, the earth is made up of water and is formless/void. Void is often regarded here as conveying chaos. As I've stated, this is the beginning state of the earth. We could speculate what is contained in the water and what it means to be chaotic, but this is not explicitly given - though entertaining to ponder. The state of the earth here is affirmed in 2 Peter 3:5-6, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." Now God's spirit was hovering over the waters [of the earth I'll add]. God is spirit (see John 4:24). So while we're not given the minutia of details of everything, this is (broadly stated) what took place on day 1. This is what God said, so.... it's what happened.

I'm including other references to scripture above so you can see these are not my words, not my thoughts, the truth and historicity of God's creation is affirmed throughout the Bible. If we had mixed messages where Genesis said one thing, but Jesus says something different, or Jesus says one thing, but is contradicted elsewhere then we'd have reason to question. Whether you are reading your English translation or the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek there are no conflicting stories around the events of creation.

Thanks, but, you’ve completely ignored my questions and just reiterated your interpretation. I don’t think you can be consistent and dismiss one source, Augustine, while quoting another you happen to agree with. I am genuinely interested in what you think about this, you as someone who believes the text is talking about 6 24hr days, not what someone else thinks. What are your reasons? Could you read my points and respond to them? My interest isn’t in trying to disprove your ideas, I’d just like to know why you think that is what the text is saying.

 

[NobleMouse]

The most educated theologians of Jesus' day rejected him! Judaism, and it's many brilliant theologians, have rejected him ever sense. The same brilliant, educated, elite priest class rejected the prophets as well. 1 Phd or 9 Phd's doesn't make false things true.

What did Jesus say about creation? We know he made reference to Adam and Eve being male and female from the beginning (not molecules from the beginning); we know he made reference to the flood of Noah's day; we know he made reference even to Jonah being in the belly of a fish for 3 days. What Jesus says about true things makes them true. If you're not going to believe what Jesus said then that's for you to wrestle with.

The creator used the technique of evolution to create life as we know it. The earth and the laws of physics that govern the material world bear no resemblance to the story that the Israelites created.

Expected, I didn't want to be presumptuous and come right out to say you were operating under this paradigm, but it is now evident that you are reinterpreting scripture (breathed out by God) because you accept what is purported by science as more authoritative than what is spoken by God. The only people who find issue with Genesis are generally have an affinity towards the assertions of secular science. So, the vain ideas of fallible man who wasn't there outweighs the words of the infallible God who was there? Does that pretty much sum up your position as to the topic of creation?

God cannot do the ungodlike thing. He cannot make square circles nor create evil that is inherently good.

God can do whatever He wants and you and I don't get to define what He can and cannot do. See Romans 9:21 and Isaiah 45:9. If you are going to take the ideas of man over the truth of God and pick-and-choose what you want to believe from scripture, you will continue to come up with incorrect theology that does not reconcile, as continues to be evidenced in your posts. This is why even a meager-minded mouse such as I can quickly find scripture that disputes what you are saying. We've all here (myself included) had to come to a point of laying down our pride and allow our hearts to be softened to the truth of God's word. When you're willing to start doing that, we can chat more. Until then, best regards and God bless.

 

[NobleMouse]

}you

Thanks, but, you’ve completely ignored my questions and just reiterated your interpretation. I don’t think you can be consistent and dismiss one source, Augustine, while quoting another you happen to agree with. I am genuinely interested in what you think about this, you as someone who believes the text is talking about 6 24hr days, not what someone else thinks. What are your reasons? Could you read my points and respond to them? My interest isn’t in trying to disprove your ideas, I’d just like to know why you think that is what the text is saying.

Augustine did not write anything in the Bible did he. What does God actually say? Jesus made references to creation multiple times. He said we were created male and female in the beginning (not a molecule), he referenced the flood of Noah's time, and He's even referenced Jonah being in the belly of a great fish for 3 days. You have so far provided no support to your arguments. I've provided more than enough scriptural support (apparently you are either not reading them/checking them out) or just decidedly don't believe them. The only reason you do not accept what is plainly stated in Genesis (and apparently also every reference to it throughout the OT and NT) is because you accept what science purports over what God says - that's for you to wrestle with.

I've also, in organized fashion, broken up what you wrote in post #89 into grouped chunks and responded to each one directly in my post (#91). What are your questions you feel were not addressed. Why I believe these are 24-hr days is because (in order of importance/relevance/weight):

1) Jesus affirms the events from Genesis (see Matthew 19:4 and Matthew 24:37). Specifically in Matthew 19:4 Jesus references Adam and Eve being male and female, in the beginning (not billions of years later as secular science would otherwise (mis)lead us to believe). These references portray that Genesis is factual (not symbolic/allegorical).

2) My understanding of being a 24-hr day is agreed upon by experts in the field such as Dr. Steven Boyd. Not just my lay understanding.

3) In Hebrew (and English) the syntax is "day" with the added context of "evening and morning". It means what it says and says what it means. Another reference in support of yom meaning a 24-hr day:
G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

Now, ball is back to you: Why do you not believe these are 24-hr days given that it is the word "day", has the context of "evening and morning", is affirmed as athentic, authoritative, and historical by Jesus, and agreed upon by experts in this field of study? As I stated before, nothing about the text suggests it should be long ages (even a 3rd grader would see it as days), so clearly your are interpreting what is plainly written to be something other than what is written. I can almost guarantee your reasons for rejecting a 24-hr day is coming from outside of the Bible. It is so plainly stated in fact, it would be like me arguing that the name you are using in this forum is not "Tom Farebrother", does not mean "Tom Farebrother", even though the name is plainly visible as exactly "Tom Farebrother". The Hebrew culture understood what a day was and recognized it as the evening from day 1 to the evening of day 2. When is Yom Kippur in 2018? Is it from the evening of 9/18/2018 to the evening of 9/19/2018 or is it the evening of 9/18/2018 to the evening of 9/19/1,000,002,018??

 

[Tom 1]

Augustine did not write anything in the Bible did he. What does God actually say? Jesus made references to creation multiple times. He said we were created male and female in the beginning (not a molecule), he referenced the flood of Noah's time, and He's even referenced Jonah being in the belly of a great fish for 3 days. You have so far provided no support to your arguments. I've provided more than enough scriptural support (apparently you are either not reading them/checking them out) or just decidedly don't believe them. The only reason you do not accept what is plainly stated in Genesis (and apparently also every reference to it throughout the OT and NT) is because you accept what science purports over what God says - that's for you to wrestle with.

I've also, in organized fashion, broken up what you wrote in post #89 into grouped chunks and responded to each one directly in my post (#91). What are your questions you feel were not addressed. Why I believe these are 24-hr days is because (in order of importance/relevance/weight):

1) Jesus affirms the events from Genesis (see Matthew 19:4 and Matthew 24:37). Specifically in Matthew 19:4 Jesus references Adam and Eve being male and female, in the beginning (not billions of years later as secular science would otherwise (mis)lead us to believe). These references portray that Genesis is factual (not symbolic/allegorical).

2) My understanding of being a 24-hr day is agreed upon by experts in the field such as Dr. Steven Boyd. Not just my lay understanding.

3) In Hebrew (and English) the syntax is "day" with the added context of "evening and morning". It means what it says and says what it means. Another reference in support of yom meaning a 24-hr day:
G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

Now, ball is back to you: Why do you not believe these are 24-hr days given that it is the word "day", has the context of "evening and morning", is affirmed as athentic, authoritative, and historical by Jesus, and agreed upon by experts in this field of study? As I stated before, nothing about the text suggests it should be long ages (even a 3rd grader would see it as days), so clearly your are interpreting what is plainly written to be something other than what is written. I can almost guarantee your reasons for rejecting a 24-hr day is coming from outside of the Bible. It is so plainly stated in fact, it would be like me arguing that the name you are using in this forum is not "Tom Farebrother", does not mean "Tom Farebrother", even though the name is plainly visible as exactly "Tom Farebrother". The Hebrew culture understood what a day was and recognized it as the evening from day 1 to the evening of day 2. When is Yom Kippur in 2018? Is it from the evening of 9/18/2018 to the evening of 9/19/2018 or is it the evening of 9/18/2018 to the evening of 9/19/1,000,002,018??

What are your actual reasons, your personal reasons, for believing that days 1-3, before the existence, according to the text if taken literally, of the sun, moon and stars and a formed earth, are to be interpreted as 24hr days? Citing scholars who you agree with isn’t a reason in itself- they didn’t write the bible either, and there are plenty of equally qualified people with different views. Why do you think those are 24 hr days? You personally? What is your explanation of why the first 3 days should be taken as 24hr days in the absence of any means of determining the length of a ‘day’ or anything to which to attach the meaning of a 24hr day, i.e the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun?

 

[Colter]

I think these are all good evidence of critical thought on your part (ex. What kind of God would regret creating man?). These are all things we have to come to grips with in our faith. Does God have the right to destroy that which He has created? You are aware "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5), yes? God is love, but He is also just (this is doctrine). By the line of reasoning you are using, one would just as well ask how God could send anyone to hell. Jesus said, "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42). Judgment and hell are clearly part of theological doctrine.

I and others here are glad to help and share our personal insight on what scripture teaches, and back it up with what is largely held by those who are formally educated in the field, if that is your interest. If; however, you are here just trolling about and looking to argue against the inerrancy of scripture on the basis of your opinion and references to pagan texts, know that your arguments are hollow and will be dismissed accordingly.

I think these are all good evidence of critical thought on your part (ex. What kind of God would regret creating man?). These are all things we have to come to grips with in our faith. Does God have the right to destroy that which He has created? You are aware "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5), yes? God is love, but He is also just (this is doctrine). By the line of reasoning you are using, one would just as well ask how God could send anyone to hell. Jesus said, "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42). Judgment and hell are clearly part of theological doctrine.

I and others here are glad to help and share our personal insight on what scripture teaches, and back it up with what is largely held by those who are formally educated in the field, if that is your interest. If; however, you are here just trolling about and looking to argue against the inerrancy of scripture on the basis of your opinion and references to pagan texts, know that your arguments are hollow and will be dismissed accordingly.

Likewise, I can help you understand reality outside of the inerrancy bubble.

Just as Satan was free to rebel, and man free to choose Gods will or not, the authors and editors of scripture were free to exaggerate their place in the world. Their descendants were just as free to reject the Son of God when he stood before them.

Human wisdom must evolve.

 

[Colter]

What did Jesus say about creation? We know he made reference to Adam and Eve being male and female from the beginning (not molecules from the beginning); we know he made reference to the flood of Noah's day; we know he made reference even to Jonah being in the belly of a fish for 3 days. What Jesus says about true things makes them true. If you're not going to believe what Jesus said then that's for you to wrestle with.


Expected, I didn't want to be presumptuous and come right out to say you were operating under this paradigm, but it is now evident that you are reinterpreting scripture (breathed out by God) because you accept what is purported by science as more authoritative than what is spoken by God. The only people who find issue with Genesis are generally have an affinity towards the assertions of secular science. So, the vain ideas of fallible man who wasn't there outweighs the words of the infallible God who was there? Does that pretty much sum up your position as to the topic of creation?


God can do whatever He wants and you and I don't get to define what He can and cannot do. See Romans 9:21 and Isaiah 45:9. If you are going to take the ideas of man over the truth of God and pick-and-choose what you want to believe from scripture, you will continue to come up with incorrect theology that does not reconcile, as continues to be evidenced in your posts. This is why even a meager-minded mouse such as I can quickly find scripture that disputes what you are saying. We've all here (myself included) had to come to a point of laying down our pride and allow our hearts to be softened to the truth of God's word. When you're willing to start doing that, we can chat more. Until then, best regards and God bless.

Scripture is human, Men writing about God as he understood him. The scripture is the “written word” while God is the Living Word.

It’s not the reality of the world and the record of the evolution of life within its layers that’s the problem, it’s trying to bend the facts to fit the Israelites narrative. Square peg, round hole.

Many Christians believe as I do. Jesus didn’t come to Reform Judaism or fix their books.

 

[NobleMouse]

What are your actual reasons, your personal reasons, for believing that days 1-3, before the existence, according to the text if taken literally, of the sun, moon and stars and a formed earth, are to be interpreted as 24hr days? Citing scholars who you agree with isn’t a reason in itself- they didn’t write the bible either, and there are plenty of equally qualified people with different views. Why do you think those are 24 hr days? You personally? What is your explanation of why the first 3 days should be taken as 24hr days in the absence of any means of determining the length of a ‘day’ or anything to which to attach the meaning of a 24hr day, i.e the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun?

Naturalistic assumptions. I already gave you my personal reasons, backed it with scripture and the views held by experts in the field. Let's turn to logic/reasoning (for grins), then I'll let you be without continuing to belabor what is already true on the basis of what the Bible plainly teaches.

Logic:
Do you need a sun to allow for the passage of time? What happens when there is a solar eclipse, does time "stand still" until the sun peeks out from behind the moon? How old are people in Alaska when there are months of no sun then months of nothing but sun? They age at the same rate as you and I - time passes at the same rate. Day with evening and morning establishes an understood convention in the passage of time (approx 24 hrs) to the Hebrews who understood what a day meant. We've already established that Hebrew recognition of a day represents a 24-hr period of time (evening to evening).

To suggest that time (in this case, a day) cannot exist without the greater light (sun) having been created would be the same as to suggest heat cannot exist without the existence of the sun. Well... heat comes from other sources than just the sun and time passes whether the sun is shining or not. This is an old argument against the idea of days 1 - 3 being 24-hr days. God created vegetation on day 3 so what would happen to the vegetation if millions or billions of years passed by before the sun was created on day 4? That's right, there would be no vegetation for the animals and man to eat on days 5 and 6. Next argument, well there was light created on day 1 without the sun, so the vegetation would not have died. Hey, that's right!! Light existed on day 1, so the trap here in this erroneous follow-up argument is that light on day 1 allows for the evening and morning at the conclusion of each day, starting with day 1.

Further issues with this idea of only accepting as days starting on day 4 - let's roll with it: Day 5, creatures in the sea and birds of the air are created. 24 hours passes. Very next day, beasts of the field, creeping things, and Adam are created; Adam lives 930 years and dies (that is, if you believe the Bible). Along the way we have many generations being born and dying... all the way up to Jesus and this covers a span of about 4,000ish years. There are written records (both scriptural and pagan) affirming His existence to be approx. 2,000 years ago... Now, does evolution teach this? Noooooooo. Evolution says we didn't start out as a man at all and that it took billions of years to get to our advanced state today. Evolution would say we were formed from one of the beasts of the field, not the dust of the ground. Hmmm....

Now what? Well, if the teachings of secular science is held above the word of God (by definition, this makes 'science' our "god" (at minimum, an idol) - and it seems that God made a commandment in regard to other gods/idols - you know these already), then what does one start doing? One starts having to redefine and reinterpret every single reference made in the Bible to the creation account, performing mental gymnastics and self-imposed logical fake-outs to seeing the text for not what it says, everywhere it is written. This is a defenseless position from a scriptural standpoint, and from a logical standpoint - this is why even a lay amateur such as I can quickly find scripture this is in discontinuity with ideas injected from secular science. So, being that everyone else here is very intelligent, the skeptic of Genesis being historical and narrative scatters away from scripture to support their position by delving into a highly technical discourse of what is purported and taught within secular science and scientific academia. Go to any thread in this forum and you will see exactly that strategy played out over and over and over like a broken record. Each of us turns to what we consider most authoritative in defense of our beliefs. If the Bible is not your source of authority, hey that's free will for you...

 

[Tom 1]

Hmmm well if that is your argument then it kind of contradicts your point about taking the passages as literal descriptions. However you cut it, you’re interpreting it to fit what you want to believe, filling in the gaps with asssumptions that support your view. I don’t really see how it’s logical to think of the passage of time and the meaning of a day, i.e something not defined by the passage of time but by the position of part of the earth in relation the sun and moon, as being the same idea. I can see you have reasons for your interpretation but I don’t think it’s consistent with the content and purpose of the genesis text.

 

[Tom 1]

One starts having to redefine and reinterpret every single reference made in the Bible to the creation account, performing mental gymnastics and self-imposed logical fake-outs to seeing the text for not what it says, everywhere it is written.

I think this is maybe the weakest spoke in the YEC wheel - there’s nothing new about this approach to interpreting Genesis, many early Christian thinkers recognised that the text doesn’t support the overly literal view. It doesn’t need any re-interpreting in the light of scientific findings, because it isn’t a scientific text. The way I see it, based as your views are in the writings of experienced biblical scholars, trying to approach the genesis creation account as something intentionally scientific, something written with the purpose of providing an actual description of the physical process of creation, is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the narrative. By including elements that make the narrative distinct from other extant beliefs and notions about ‘gods’ in the ANE, genesis provided the Israelites with a clear understanding of the unique nature of their God and his role as the creator and initiator of all things. This and other lessons about God and mankind in relation to God, creation and each other wrapped up in the narrative constitute its purpose.