Do you trust God or Man when it comes to the creation?

[Jipsah]

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Which still doesn't make it a technical manual.

 

[Jipsah]

At the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it to His disciples and said "This is My body".
Is the bread of the Lord's Supper His real and literal flesh, or no?

I don't want to derail this thread, but it's my experience that the people who claim the Bible has to be taken literally, at face value, etc will, when presented with Jesus' own words, turn around and deny that Jesus meant His words literally.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah, it's always semed to me more than passing strange that some people demand that the Genesis timeline must be taken literally, yet will, with equal passion, demand that our Lord's "this is My Body" must not be taken literally. SMH

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where does the text say the days are not literal?

Evening and morning are meaningless concepts without a sun, and the sun wasn't created until the 4th day.

And that's not me offering some modern observation. Christians, devout Christian students of Scripture, observed this even as far back as the early centuries of the Church. It's one of the reasons why Christian thinkers in antiquity and the middle ages tended toward a non-literal reading of the creation story.

Examples: Origen of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm still hoping that @dwb001 will clarify and explain what they meant about the age of the earth being salvational.

Things seem to have escalated in other directions, but I'd still like an answer to that question--so that I am not left mischaracterizing their position as they claimed I was, and can respond to it properly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

Evening and morning are meaningless concepts without a sun, and the sun wasn't created until the 4th day.

Sun not needed for evening and morning if there is light and a rotating sphere.

And that's not me offering some modern observation. Christians, devout Christian students of Scripture, observed this even as far back as the early centuries of the Church. It's one of the reasons why Christian thinkers in antiquity and the middle ages tended toward a non-literal reading of the creation story.

So some other people were wrong as well.

Examples: Origen of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas

Did any of these believe in an Earth with a billion year history?
Or did they have a faster view of creation?

Be honest, just because somebody does not have a literal view of Genesis 1 it does not indicate that it is in accord with your theories.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sun not needed for evening and morning if there is light and a rotating sphere.

Only if you add something to the text that isn't there. The text speaks of the creation of light, and a separation of light and darkness. You'll notice this as a common theme in the first three days of creation, God separates; whereas in the second set of three days God fills.

Your statement here only works if you try to make the argument that the light created on the first day has a specific location relative to the earth in the same way that the sun, created on the fourth day, does.

So some other people were wrong as well.

Did any of these believe in an Earth with a billion year history?
Or did they have a faster view of creation?

St. Augustine, based on his reading of Sirach (which he, and many Christians today regard as Scripture), held that God created everything simultaneously. Augustine, did--as far as I'm aware--believe it was "young".

Augustine also would have held to the common Ptoloemaic view of the cosmos. As the Ptolemaic view would not be seriously challenged until Copernicus and Galileo.

But Augustine also had the wherewithal to recognize that trying to use the Bible to defend positions contrary to observed reality was foolish and made a mockery of God's word and brought the whole Christian religion into disrepute.

Be honest, just because somebody does not have a literal view of Genesis 1 it does not indicate that it is in accord with your theories.

I didn't claim it did. I didn't claim Augustine or Origen held any modern scientific views. Only that the observation that morning and evening makes no sense without a source of light to shine upon a globe is a major hint that it's not meant to be taken literally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

Only if you add something to the text that isn't there. The text speaks of the creation of light, and a separation of light and darkness. You'll notice this as a common theme in the first three days of creation, God separates; whereas in the second set of three days God fills.

Your statement here only works if you try to make the argument that the light created on the first day has a specific location relative to the earth in the same way that the sun, created on the fourth day, does.

That is part of the separating as you yourself say.

St. Augustine, based on his reading of Sirach (which he, and many Christians today regard as Scripture), held that God created everything simultaneously. Augustine, did--as far as I'm aware--believe it was "young".

Augustine also would have held to the common Ptoloemaic view of the cosmos. As the Ptolemaic view would not be seriously challenged until Copernicus and Galileo.

But Augustine also had the wherewithal to recognize that trying to use the Bible to defend positions contrary to observed reality was foolish and made a mockery of God's word and brought the whole Christian religion into disrepute.



I didn't claim it did. I didn't claim Augustine or Origen held any modern scientific views. Only that the observation that morning and evening makes no sense without a source of light to shine upon a globe is a major hint that it's not meant to be taken literally.

-CryptoLutheran

Your last point is incorrect. That is not what you claimed.
The days without a sun make no sense to you.
And how does your opinion change what God did?
So of what value is your opinion?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is part of the separating as you yourself say.

Your last point is incorrect. That is not what you claimed.
The days without a sun make no sense to you.
And how does your opinion change what God did?
So of what value is your opinion?

Alright.

Would you now be willing to answer the question about the salvational nature of the age of the earth. I was accused of misunderstanding you and "attacking" you earlier in this thread. And so I've been waiting to get an explanation on what you mean by this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

Alright.

Would you now be willing to answer the question about the salvational nature of the age of the earth. I was accused of misunderstanding you and "attacking" you earlier in this thread. And so I've been waiting to get an explanation on what you mean by this.

-CryptoLutheran

I posted that explanation in post #288 and on.
I don't feel like posting everything again.

 

[Jipsah]

Sun not needed for evening and morning if there is light and a rotating sphere.

Where's the light coming from? And how long are those mornings and evenings? And how do you know?

So some other people were wrong as well.

There seems to be quite a lot of that going round.

Did any of these believe in an Earth with a billion year history?
Or did they have a faster view of creation?

Depends on whether they had ever studied the question or not.

Be honest, just because somebody does not have a literal view of Genesis 1 it does not indicate that it is in accord with your theories.

Sure. Materialists take the (to me) nonsensical view that it all "just happened".

 

[dwb001]

Where's the light coming from? And how long are those mornings and evenings? And how do you know?

Ah, so now we get some interesting questions.

There seems to be quite a lot of that going round.

I talk to those people all the time on these forums.

Depends on whether they had ever studied the question or not.

They were brought forward as examples of people who did. So why would they not have asked these questions?

Sure. Materialists take the (to me) nonsensical view that it all "just happened".

That is not the theory under discussion but nice try.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Again, Genesis is not written by God. It was written by humans, therefore those humans communicated in their mindset and language.

And those humans were not interested in literal history or science, they were interested in mythology, symbolism and parallelism. In meanings, not in technicalities.

So you question the validity of the Word of God because you don't believe God had a hand in the actual writing of The Bible. It makes sense now, take God out of the influence in writing the Bible and then you can not believe it because you think it was just some guy who wrote it.

If you can do that then I guess the scripture of "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." if you don't believe God influenced and inspired writing the Word of God then you probably also don't believe that God is actually composed of The Word either.

If you remove God from The Bible then you're not gonna believe most things written in it, and that is very sad.

 

[Jipsah]

That is part of the separating as you yourself say.

I'm sorry, what?

Your last point is incorrect. That is not what you claimed.
The days without a sun make no sense to you.

No, the "days" with no sun are simply of indeterminate length. Could have been 24 hours, 24 years, or 24 aeons. God doesn't reckon time as we do, no need to.

And how does your opinion change what God d
So of what value is your opinion?

God did what He did without regard to my opinion, or yours, for that matter. I see evidence that leads me to believe that Creation was a lengthy process, at least by human reckoning. From God's standpoint He may have knocked it out before lunch. The writer of Genesis hasn't felt it necessary to include details like that, probably because no one would understand them anyway. The declaration that Genesis "days" were X seconds long is a bit of eisegesis that the extraordinarily fundamentalist use to reassure themselves about how seriously they take Scripture. To most Christians it simply makes them sound like the guy who insists that our Lord never combed His hair because the Bible never says that He did. Could be true, is probably rubbish, and is completely irrelevant either way.

 

[Jipsah]

Ah, so now we get some interesting questions.

For which, apparently, you have no interesting answers. Imagine my shock.

I talk to those people all the time on these forums.

Or at them, anyway.

They were brought forward as examples of people who did.

Did what?

So why would they not have asked these questions?

Just did.

That is not the theory under discussion but nice try.

What theory is under discussion, then?

 

[dwb001]

I'm sorry, what?

You said that God separated light from dark... that creates evening and morning, days.

No, the "days" with no sun are simply of indeterminate length. Could have been 24 hours, 24 years, or 24 aeons. God doesn't reckon time as we do, no need to.

You are guessing. Why not the days with the sun are of multi-millennial length. But after men were chosen the Earth speed corrected to the current setting.
Yeah, right.

God did what He did without regard to my opinion, or yours, for that matter. I see evidence that leads me to believe that Creation was a lengthy process, at least by human reckoning. From God's standpoint He may have knocked it out before lunch. The writer of Genesis hasn't felt it necessary to include details like that, probably because no one would understand them anyway. The declaration that Genesis "days" were X seconds long is a bit of eisegesis that the extraordinarily fundamentalist use to reassure themselves about how seriously they take Scripture. To most Christians it simply makes them sound like the guy who insists that our Lord never combed His hair because the Bible never says that He did. Could be true, is probably rubbish, and is completely irrelevant either way.

So God lied to Adam about how long the creation of the Earth took?
I never said days were x seconds long.
I am not arguing from silence but using the words as God caused to be writ.

My opinion is based on what God said.
What is your opinion based on?
You keep saying there is evidence of an old Earth but you never show any work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I posted that explanation in post #288 and on.
I don't feel like posting everything again.

Here are the two posts I could find:

Thanks for asking... I am sure you will jump to conclusions again... but we can deal with that as it happens.

The first 3 Chapters of Genesis is sufficient for salvation.
Also they have the power to save.

So how do you understand the above two statements?

So the first three chapters of Genesis show God's power, mans position to God, and mans fall by Satans machinations.
This is enough to be salvational for the next 2000 years until Abram gets selected to be God's example on Earth.
Sufficient.

The next bit depends on how much of Satan's lie you have swallowed.
You don't believe in a young Earth.
Do you believe mankind is the end result of evolution or the final created work of the Lord?
Do you believe there was a world wide flood with Noah and fam being the only survivors along with the animals on the Ark?


So now you have knowledge of how Gen 1-3 are sufficient for salvation.
Depending on your answers to my second point questions I will explain the saving power of Genesis.

I'm not seeing where in these two posts, or anywhere else, where you answered the question about how it's salvational.

You said

"So the first three chapters of Genesis show God's power, mans position to God, and mans fall by Satans machinations.
This is enough to be salvational for the next 2000 years until Abram gets selected to be God's example on Earth.
Sufficient."

But you don't explain how.

I was hoping you'd actually explain your position here. Because I didn't want to be accused of misunderstanding what you're saying, I didn't want to make any assumptions about what you mean.

But this statement "So the first three chapters of Genesis show God's power, man's position to God, and man's fall ... this is enough to be salvational until Abram" doesn't explain much, and any response to it I would offer would require me to make a possible assumption of what you mean, and I don't want to misunderstand.

But I will say what it looks like you're saying: That to know God's power, man's position to God, and the reality of man's fall is "sufficient for salvation", at least during a specific period of time (between the Fall and the call of Abram).

If I am understanding what you meant correctly, then allow me to offer my response. If I am not understanding you correctly, then please offer further clarification.

Therefore, consider this a conditional response based on my present understanding of what you've said; if I have failed to understand you then we can disregard my response here.

St. Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, gives his Thesis Statement for the entire epistle, it's found in Romans 1:16-17,

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek. For by it the justice of God is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" - Romans 1:16-17

Paul then gives us this, speaking of the wrath of God revealed from heaven:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:18-23

Now, within the larger picture of Romans, the point Paul is making is going to be the universal condemnation that is over all people, both Jew and Gentile; as he will begin chapter 2 by saying "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." (Romans 2:1)

But for our purposes here, let's see what Paul is saying. Paul says that "For what can be known about God is plain to them ... His invisible attributes ... His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world"

But this did not lead to salvation. That God's power, His wisdom, His glory is on full display in all which He made did not lead men to faith and to true worship of the Creator. Instead, what happened? "they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the Immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things".

Here, I'd even turn back to Exodus. For YHWH having rescued His people out from Egypt has allowed His glory to settle upon the mountain, and Moses has ascended the mountain. The people were terrified of the glory, begging Moses to talk to God for them (and even Moses was warned that to behold God's face would mean certain death, and so Moses was permitted to experience only the faintest glimmer of the Divine Glory). Yet Moses walked up the mountain, and what do the people do at the base of the mountain? They heard the peals of thunder, the terror of glory from the mountain, and yet they go to Aaron and say, "Make us an image that we might worship it". And gold was collected and melted down and fashioned into a golden calf to be worshiped.

They were right there at the base of the mountain where the glory of God had brought them, He had led them out of Egypt, brought them through the Red Sea on dry land. They beheld the mighty works of His hands--the judgments against Egypt in the form of the Ten Plagues. Yet they still wished to worship an image.

So here's my counter-argument: From the first three chapters of Genesis we see the condemnation of man. There is nothing in God's power and glory, and the reality of the Fall and our fallen disposition before God as sinners, that is in any way salvational.

Salvation cannot be found in the Law, that is, in the Commandments of God and the condemnation each and every single person has as a trespasser, a sinner, against the Commandments of God.

Each of us is dead in our sin, and knowledge that we are sinners cannot save us. There is no salvation in the just pronouncement of: "You are found guilty".

Now, I will say this. We do see the first glimmer of salvation in those three chapters of Genesis, and it's in this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" - Genesis 3:15

Because,

"Jesus ... the Son of David, the Son of Jesse ... the Son of Judah, the Son of Jacob, the Son of Isaac, the Son of Abraham ... the Son of Adam" - Luke 3:23-38

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dwb001]

For which, apparently, you have no interesting answers. Imagine my shock.

I never said I did.

Or at them, anyway.

If that is the way you feel.

Did what?

Study the question. Like you were talking about. Did you loose the tread of your own argument?

Just did.

So Augustine just asked a question? Tough to do from the grave but ok.

What theory is under discussion, then?

Persons who believed in a not traditional view of Genesis 1 believing in a shorter creation timeline not longer.

 

[The Barbarian]

Anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just revising scripture to suit his own wishes.

Says you .......

Says God. Or rather, He doesn't say. There is no age of the Earth given in Genesis.

Some have made some adjustments and interpretations to make is so, but most just don't want to contort themselves that far.

Where does the text say the days are not literal?

Literal days with mornings and evenings need a sun to have them. So until the Sun, no literal days are possible.

 

[dwb001]

Here are the two posts I could find:





I'm not seeing where in these two posts, or anywhere else, where you answered the question about how it's salvational.

You said

"So the first three chapters of Genesis show God's power, mans position to God, and mans fall by Satans machinations.
This is enough to be salvational for the next 2000 years until Abram gets selected to be God's example on Earth.
Sufficient."

But you don't explain how.

I was hoping you'd actually explain your position here. Because I didn't want to be accused of misunderstanding what you're saying, I didn't want to make any assumptions about what you mean.

But this statement "So the first three chapters of Genesis show God's power, man's position to God, and man's fall ... this is enough to be salvational until Abram" doesn't explain much, and any response to it I would offer would require me to make a possible assumption of what you mean, and I don't want to misunderstand.

But I will say what it looks like you're saying: That to know God's power, man's position to God, and the reality of man's fall is "sufficient for salvation", at least during a specific period of time (between the Fall and the call of Abram).

If I am understanding what you meant correctly, then allow me to offer my response. If I am not understanding you correctly, then please offer further clarification.

Therefore, consider this a conditional response based on my present understanding of what you've said; if I have failed to understand you then we can disregard my response here.

St. Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, gives his Thesis Statement for the entire epistle, it's found in Romans 1:16-17,

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek. For by it the justice of God is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" - Romans 1:16-17

Paul then gives us this, speaking of the wrath of God revealed from heaven:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:18-23

Now, within the larger picture of Romans, the point Paul is making is going to be the universal condemnation that is over all people, both Jew and Gentile; as he will begin chapter 2 by saying "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." (Romans 2:1)

But for our purposes here, let's see what Paul is saying. Paul says that "For what can be known about God is plain to them ... His invisible attributes ... His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world"

But this did not lead to salvation. That God's power, His wisdom, His glory is on full display in all which He made did not lead men to faith and to true worship of the Creator. Instead, what happened? "they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the Immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things".

Here, I'd even turn back to Exodus. For YHWH having rescued His people out from Egypt has allowed His glory to settle upon the mountain, and Moses has ascended the mountain. The people were terrified of the glory, begging Moses to talk to God for them (and even Moses was warned that to behold God's face would mean certain death, and so Moses was permitted to experience only the faintest glimmer of the Divine Glory). Yet Moses walked up the mountain, and what do the people do at the base of the mountain? They heard the peals of thunder, the terror of glory from the mountain, and yet they go to Aaron and say, "Make us an image that we might worship it". And gold was collected and melted down and fashioned into a golden calf to be worshiped.

They were right there at the base of the mountain where the glory of God had brought them, He had led them out of Egypt, brought them through the Red Sea on dry land. They beheld the mighty works of His hands--the judgments against Egypt in the form of the Ten Plagues. Yet they still wished to worship an image.

So here's my counter-argument: From the first three chapters of Genesis we see the condemnation of man. There is nothing in God's power and glory, and the reality of the Fall and our fallen disposition before God as sinners, that is in any way salvational.

Salvation cannot be found in the Law, that is, in the Commandments of God and the condemnation each and every single person has as a trespasser, a sinner, against the Commandments of God.

Each of us is dead in our sin, and knowledge that we are sinners cannot save us. There is no salvation in the just pronouncement of: "You are found guilty".

Now, I will say this. We do see the first glimmer of salvation in those three chapters of Genesis, and it's in this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" - Genesis 3:15

Because,

"Jesus ... the Son of David, the Son of Jesse ... the Son of Judah, the Son of Jacob, the Son of Isaac, the Son of Abraham ... the Son of Adam" - Luke 3:23-38

-CryptoLutheran

You ramble on and I won't read.
Bad eyesight you know.
Ask a question, get an answer.
Make a speech, get ignored.

Yes you posted my answer but failed to understand it.

Remember that I am saying that Genesis 1-3 is not required for salvation but is salvational.
Try to ask a question so I can answer it for you.
Keep the speech making for those who are willing to listen.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You ramble on and I won't read.
Bad eyesight you know.
Ask a question, get an answer.
Make a speech, get ignored.

Yes you posted my answer but failed to understand it.

Remember that I am saying that Genesis 1-3 is not required for salvation but is salvational.
Try to ask a question so I can answer it for you.
Keep the speech making for those who are willing to listen.

Have a blessed day.

-CryptoLutheran