Science (observations in nature) - supports creation not evolution. So does the Bible

[BobRyan]

For instance, in the Old Testament it is assumed that only the father contributed genetically to descendants while by the time of the NT, it was known that both father and mother contribute to the genetics of children.

It is unclear to me that any part of the OT says "only the father contributes to the genetics of the child"

 

[DennisF]

Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense - but the chapter only gives a timeline, a time-boxed chronological sequence, for the formatting of Earth for life, all life on Earth, the creation of our sun and moon.

The "entire universe" I take you to mean the universe as depicted in the 20th-century cosmological model of about 10^20 star systems. But the Genesis account says nothing about 20th century cosmological models any more than it says anything about the modern neo-Darwinian theory of the development of life. The "earth" (eretz) can be nothing more than land, but if you take it to mean the planet, then the remaining question is what the scope of shamayim is. It could merely be the skies (troposphere) or it could mean everything visible in the night sky. The account just does not say, so modern readers interpret it according to how they suppose it is.

 

[roman2819]

And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

3 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

In Genesis 1, the Bible said, “There was evening and there was morning” at the end of each day. However, if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days? As well, notice the order: It was not morning, then evening. Instead, it was the reverse: It was evening first, followed by morning. I believe that evening means the end of a stage -- not sunset. And morning means the beginning of another phase -- not sunrise.

I believed that the word day implies a stage, a phase, a timeframe. The creation took place in organized stages. At the first phase, light was created, followed by the sky, then the land, sea and vegetation. Later, in distinct stages, God created the flying creatures, marine lifeforms, and finally, land animals, and then man and woman. He did not create randomly, so to speak: He did not make the stars, then the land, some living creatures, and then create more stars again; instead, He proceeded in an orderly way. Why did the Bible use the word day instead of stage or phase? The word day fits the prose of writing in religious scriptures. For different subjects, be it engineering, human literature, fiction, magazines or newspapers, there are different ways of writing. Chemistry books are written in a factual way, while consumer magazines use words to capture our interests and promote sales. In Chinese culture, the word day can refer to heaven or the deities that dwell in heaven -- and this is not a unique view; it is not unusual for earthly beings to look at the sky and moon, and wonder if there are gods that live far beyond the stars. In the Bible, in the context of creation, day alludes to a passage of time.

A million years for day 3 without any sun -- is not a science-affirming idea - but a 24 hour day - a single rotation. Where there is light for 12 hours (no matter the source|) -- and then night for 12 hours... does not present a science-challenge for plants and does not present a text challenge since it is consistent with the Gen 1-2:3 account as well as the Ex 20:11 summary of it.

God created vegetation on the 3rd 'day' -- before the sun, moon and stars were made. The light from first day gives energy to the plants to grow. And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. [v11] Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” ..... [v13] And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Even if God creates the sun 50 years or 500 years after making the plants, the light (made on first 'day' give energy to the vegetation.

"day" is "yom" in every case in Gen 1 - not just for day 4. In Ex 20:8-11 "for in six days the Lord made" -- day is still "yom" and applies to all the working days of the 7 day week.

Moses said to the people, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” [Exodus 20:11]. But back then, could they have known that, in the context of creation, the word ‘day’ was figurative? There are many things about the culture and use of words that we do not know about, and the Bible does not explain.

Indeed, I believe that Moses would be amused at the thought of how thousands of kinds of living things – falcons, kingfishers, leopards, giraffe, hens, worms, ants, ant-eaters, cats and 200,000 other types of insects, animals and lifeforms – would materialize suddenly in seventy-two hours, as if God had used CGI (computer graphics interface). Why would God rush to create at such a superfast pace? Instead, I believe He would plan out the ecology, construct the atmosphere and elements, then the landscape and fauna. With these structures in place, He placed the sun and moon in place so the earth would have day and night, then proceeded to design and make the lifeforms in the sea and on land. It is similar for people that like to work on jigsaw puzzles – do they buy an already assembled product or do they enjoy connecting the pieces?

 

[DennisF]

Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense - but the chapter only gives a timeline, a time-boxed chronological sequence, for the formatting of Earth for life, all life on Earth, the creation of our sun and moon.

"Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense" is a typical contemporary claim, not scripture. I am not in ultimate disagreement that the entire observable universe is the work of the Creator, but he might not be God the Father if Jesus is the son of the Father; he might be God the Grandfather. We simply are not told. God still retains a few profound secrets, especially about himself and what it even means ontologically to be God. Yahweh refused to tell Israel when queried on what makes him "tick" but gave a tautology in response: "I will be who i will be."

The sequence given in Genesis 1 is numerical and not necessarily chronological. The sequence, except the fourth day, fits well into the modern chronological view of how life developed on earth but the usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

 

[DennisF]

It is unclear to me that any part of the OT says "only the father contributes to the genetics of the child"

I based this on a source that I now cannot find! So I will retract it until I find the source.

 

[DennisF]

"Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense" is a typical contemporary claim, not scripture. I am not in ultimate disagreement that the entire observable universe is the work of the Creator, but he might not be God the Father if Jesus is the son of the Father; he might be God the Grandfather. We simply are not told. God still retains a few profound secrets, especially about himself and what it even means ontologically to be God. Yahweh refused to tell Israel when queried on what makes him "tick" but gave a tautology in response: "I will be who I will be."

The sequence given in Genesis 1 is numerical and not necessarily chronological. The sequence, except the fourth day, fits well into the modern chronological view of how life developed on earth but the usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense - but the chapter only gives a timeline, a time-boxed chronological sequence, for the formatting of Earth for life, all life on Earth, the creation of our sun and moon.

"Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense" is a typical contemporary claim

Since it actually says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" - no limit.
And the NT Confirms it.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Col 1:16 for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”

We have full agreement on this point in both OT and NT

I am not in ultimate disagreement that the entire observable universe is the work of the Creator, but he might not be God the Father if Jesus is the son of the Father; he might be God the Grandfather.

In the Bible we have "One God" Deut 6;4 "The LORD your God is ONE" -- in Three persons Matt 28:19 "The name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

John 17 Jesus calls God His Father and scripture claims He existed from eternity past along with the Father.

. God still retains a few profound secrets, especially about himself and what it even means ontologically to be God.

No doubt - infinite God is a concept that a finite being can never fully comprehend.

But comprehending even the tiny bit that our minds can fathom - begins with accepting Him at His Word - full acceptance.

Notice in Gen 3 the downward path began with "indeed - has God really said ...."?

The idea was that even the simplest statements of God , are not to be trusted , maybe we got it wrong etc. That is how it all started.

Yahweh refused to tell Israel when queried on what makes him "tick" but gave a tautology in response: "I will be who i will be."

He said "I AM who I AM" and when Moses asked - whom shall I say has sent Me - God said "I AM that I AM".
In John 8 Jesus claims this as His own saying "Before Abraham was - I AM"

HE is the self-existent one - Alpha and Omega - He is self-existent in all time past, present and future. Infinite God.

The sequence given in Genesis 1 is numerical

The sequence is a time-boxed Chronology with each time boxed unit given the time of "one day". In a sequence. That is the definition of Chronology

Then God said "let there be" and God made... and evening and morning was the nth-day

The heart and soul of time-boxed chronological sequencing

The sequence, except the fourth day, fits well into the modern chronological view of how life developed

Indeed - day four having the sun after plants is not at all what atheists/materialists/etc would have suggested.

The idea that any part of it happens in one single "evening and morning" is not a claim made by any naturalist at all apart from the bible.

 

[BobRyan]

In Genesis 1, the Bible said, “There was evening and there was morning” at the end of each day. However, if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days?

1. A rotating planet
2. A light source on one side of the planet rather than the same light on all sides all the time.

Infinite God would have "some options" for light other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles away.

As well, notice the order: It was not morning, then evening. Instead, it was the reverse: It was evening first, followed by morning.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

agreed - first evening and then morning ... even on day 1.

I believe that evening means the end of a stage -- not sunset. And morning means the beginning of another phase -- not sunrise.

You have free will of course and can believe anything you wish.

But exegesis is important when rendering the meaning of a given text. The author in this case is Moses and the audience is newly freed slave right out of Egypt. Where they going to engage in flights of fancy, mental gymnastics etc to wrench the text away from its obvious meaning - so that a cosmologist living 4500 years later would happy with the text?

that seems a bit far fetched to me.

Even if God creates the sun 50 years or 500 years after making the plants, the light (made on first 'day' give energy to the vegetation.

Evening and morning -- one day - was never the way to say "and then 50 years later God did something else" -- not at all . That is never what we find in scripture

Moses said to the people, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” [Exodus 20:11]. But back then, could they have known that, in the context of creation, the word ‘day’ was figurative?

You admit then -- that the language in the text in Genesis 1 and the Language in Ex 20:11 at Sinai clearly conveys 7 24 hour days (seven rotations of the spinning planet as we would say). Nothing in that text suggests to the reader that "day" (yom) is figurative since it says "SIX DAYS shall you labor for in SIX DAYs the Lord made".

There is no way around this detail.

. Why would God rush to create at such a superfast pace? Instead, I believe He would plan out the ecology, construct the atmosphere and elements, then the landscape and fauna. With these structures in place, He placed the sun and moon in place so the earth would have day and night, then proceeded to design and make the lifeforms in the sea and on land. It is similar for people that like to work on jigsaw puzzles – do they buy an already assembled product or do they enjoy connecting the pieces?

God tells us that humans lived for almost 1000 years -- each person -- before the flood.

The answer cannot be that God did now know of a way to accurately convey the idea that He took 1000 years to make plants.
The answer cannot be that God did not know of a way to accurately convey the idea that He created man instantly from dirt - directly to adult male capable of tending the garden, capable of being married -- on day 1

 

[roman2819]

1. A rotating planet
2. A light source on one side of the planet rather than the same light on all sides all the time.

Infinite God would have "some options" for light other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles away.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

agreed - first evening and then morning ... even on day 1.

You have free will of course and can believe anything you wish.

But exegesis is important when rendering the meaning of a given text. The author in this case is Moses and the audience is newly freed slave right out of Egypt. Where they going to engage in flights of fancy, mental gymnastics etc to wrench the text away from its obvious meaning - so that a cosmologist living 4500 years later would happy with the text?

that seems a bit far fetched to me.

Evening and morning -- one day - was never the way to say "and then 50 years later God did something else" -- not at all . That is never what we find in scripture

You admit then -- that the language in the text in Genesis 1 and the Language in Ex 20:11 at Sinai clearly conveys 7 24 hour days (seven rotations of the spinning planet as we would say). Nothing in that text suggests to the reader that "day" (yom) is figurative since it says "SIX DAYS shall you labor for in SIX DAYs the Lord made".

There is no way around this detail.

God tells us that humans lived for almost 1000 years -- each person -- before the flood.

The answer cannot be that God did now know of a way to accurately convey the idea that He took 1000 years to make plants.
The answer cannot be that God did not know of a way to accurately convey the idea that He created man instantly from dirt - directly to adult male capable of tending the garden, capable of being married -- on daHow y 1

Any comment on Genesis 1:14-18:

As God planned to set lights in the sky [Genesis 1:14-15], He “made two great lights—the greater light (sun) to govern the day and the lesser light (moon) to govern the night. He also made the stars" [Genesis 1:16].

As He went on to “set them (the sun, moon and stars) in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness” [Genesis 1:18], God constructed the day and night as we know it. For the first time in the creation process, the day and night as we know were formed – which is different from the day and night on the first day of creation, when the sun, moon and stars were not yet in place. Our definition of a twenty-four hour day was made on the fourth stage. It means the other same word, day (1 to 6) is not literally 24-hours. When reading the Scriptures, don't just see the words literally, figure out the context.

Genesis 1:14-18 describe how God made the 24-hour day on the 4th day (the 4th stage of the creation process). I don't see how it can be clearer than that.

You admit then -- that the language in the text in Genesis 1 and the Language in Ex 20:11 at Sinai clearly conveys 7 24 hour days (seven rotations of the spinning planet as we would say). Nothing in that text suggests to the reader that "day" (yom) is figurative since it says "SIX DAYS shall you labor for in SIX DAYs the Lord made".

Did you miss the second sentence ? That back then, people in Moses time (or Jesus time) knew that the word day in the context of creation is figurative.

 

[DennisF]

BobRyan said:
Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense - but the chapter only gives a timeline, a time-boxed chronological sequence, for the formatting of Earth for life, all life on Earth, the creation of our sun and moon.

Since it actually says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" - no limit.
And the NT Confirms it.

Are you supposing that "the heavens and the earth" have no limit? What is the scope of the creation?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Col 1:16 for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”

We have full agreement on this point in both OT and NT

Superlatives in the Bible are not the same in meaning as in English, which is ruled by Greek logic having what I call infinity-words not found in scripture. Words like every, all, eternity are not in scripture but are a product of translation. The first rule of Bible study is to beware of the translations!

Example: Psalm 23: ... and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. Forever is one of these infinity-words but it is not in the Hebrew which literally says "for all the days". Which or how many days is not said.

In the Bible we have "One God" Deut 6;4 "The LORD your God is ONE" -- in Three persons Matt 28:19 "The name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

The "one God" in Deuteronomy is Yahweh. The NT text does not say what you made it out to be saying. There is no talk of "three persons" as God; three is not one. This does not mean that Father, Son, and Spirit do not share in being God but that too much of what is theologically trinitarian doctrine is not found in the early church and is the work of syncretizing scripture with Greek philosophy - where infinity-words come from. Much of what passes as trinitarian doctrine came from church councils after they were politicized and dominated by the Bishop of Rome. The early Christians believed, as did the Druids, in a trinitarian God, but did not load it down with much of what today passes as trinitarian theology.

John 17 Jesus calls God His Father and scripture claims He existed from eternity past along with the Father.

Find out what the word translated as eternity actually means.

No doubt - infinite God is a concept that a finite being can never fully comprehend.

God does not even tell us that he is infinite. That comes from Greek, not Hebrew, thinking.

But comprehending even the tiny bit that our minds can fathom - begins with accepting Him at His Word - full acceptance.

Yes, once we figure out what his word is.

Notice in Gen 3 the downward path began with "indeed - has God really said ...."?

... and the upward path when one begins to ask, have the translators got it right?

The idea was that even the simplest statements of God , are not to be trusted , maybe we got it wrong etc. That is how it all started.

Doubting the word of God is one thing; doubting the words of translators is another.

He said "I AM who I AM" and when Moses asked - whom shall I say has sent Me - God said "I AM that I AM".
In John 8 Jesus claims this as His own saying "Before Abraham was - I AM"

However you wish to conjugate the Hebrew verb.

HE is the self-existent one - Alpha and Omega - He is self-existent in all time past, present and future. Infinite God.

Good Greek philosophical thinking not found in Hebrew literature, including the bible. Alpha and omega are the finite beginning and ending of the Greek alphabet, and that finite aspect is Hebrew.

The sequence is a time-boxed Chronology with each time boxed unit given the time of "one day". In a sequence. That is the definition of Chronology

Yes, day is a unit of time (however much time it is intended to be in Genesis) but it is the sequencing that matters, not the time. We are not given the time of day, unless you suppose the entire presently observable Creation occurred in 6 x 24 hours!

Then God said "let there be" and God made... and evening and morning was the nth-day

This is not accurate scriptural referencing. Phrases such as "Let the earth bring forth ..." has as its only reference to who is doing the "bring[ing] forth" are the elohim of Gen. 1:1. This word in Hebrew is male plural for god, or is gods. They are the antecedent of the plural pronoun "us" in verse 26.

The heart and soul of time-boxed chronological sequencing

Indeed - day four having the sun after plants is not at all what atheists/materialists/etc would have suggested.

The idea that any part of it happens in one single "evening and morning" is not a claim made by any naturalist at all apart from the bible.

A larger discussion of The Meaning of Creation - the title of a book by Conrad Hyers - is a substantial topic - too much for this post.

 

[David Lamb]

but he might not be God the Father if Jesus is the son of the Father; he might be God the Grandfather. We simply are not told.

Not sure what you mean by that. Over and over again in the bible, God is called "God the Father," and Jesus calls Him "My Father." Jesus Himself is called the Son of God, not the Grandson of God.

 

[DennisF]

Not sure what you mean by that. Over and over again in the bible, God is called "God the Father," and Jesus calls Him "My Father." Jesus Himself is called the Son of God, not the Grandson of God.

The overall point I am making is that God tells us little to nothing about himself ontologically. When during the Exodus, the Israelites asked Yahweh for his name, to us that would merely be a label, but in most of history, from about a couple of centuries ago back, a name meant the essential characteristics and not merely a designator. When Yahweh gives Adam the task of naming the animals, it is not a mere linguistic labeling activity. Israel was wanting to know the inner workings of Yahweh, how he functioned, so that they could use him for their purposes. His response, in effect, was "It's none of your business."

Now, my further point is that the scope of God's revelation of himself is also in this category. There could be more to God than we have either imagined or been told. This is why the kind of Greek philosophical musings in the later (from the latter-400s AD onwards) church councils found them no longer attended by most of European and Mideast Christendom, who were called heretics by Rome because they refused to syncretize scriptural teaching with pagan ideas and ways of thinking. Much of the consequent development of trinitarian doctrine by the Western, Rome-dominated churches was formulated on the basis of Greek philosophical thinking prevalent in the West and not the kind of observationally-oriented, finite thinking of Hebrew culture. The early church (and their forerunners, the Druids, of the patriarchal tradition of Abraham, Melchizedek, Noah) did have a triad structure to their understanding of God; hints of it occur in the Bible. But they did not spin an elaborate theoretical doctrine largely devoid of scriptural support and heavily dependent on Greek reasoning. The Reformation did not really root out this pagan accommodation and we are stuck with it to this day though few Good Christians recognize that it is even there.

One of the telltale signs of this is the common use by translators of words having no bounds to them - what I call infinity-words, beginning with superlatives. To illustrate, in the plagues in Egypt, all the cattle die in one plague only to have boils in the next. (Some atheists use this to show how the Bible is inconsistent.) In English, superlatives such as all have a Greek logical meaning of "without exception" whereas in Hebrew thinking, it means "the preponderance of" - a statistical and not logical way of using superlatives. This analysis can be extended to words involving infinite time such as forever, ever, eternity, and eternal. The literal Hebrew has finite meanings that the translators have replaced with infinity-words. This cavalier reference to infinity in theology - especially in trying to "know God's name" is the point I am making.

 

[David Lamb]

The overall point I am making is that God tells us little to nothing about himself ontologically. When during the Exodus, the Israelites asked Yahweh for his name, to us that would merely be a label, but in most of history, from about a couple of centuries ago back, a name meant the essential characteristics and not merely a designator. When Yahweh gives Adam the task of naming the animals, it is not a mere linguistic labeling activity. Israel was wanting to know the inner workings of Yahweh, how he functioned, so that they could use him for their purposes. His response, in effect, was "It's none of your business."

Now, my further point is that the scope of God's revelation of himself is also in this category. There could be more to God than we have either imagined or been told. This is why the kind of Greek philosophical musings in the later (from the latter-400s AD onwards) church councils found them no longer attended by most of European and Mideast Christendom, who were called heretics by Rome because they refused to syncretize scriptural teaching with pagan ideas and ways of thinking. Much of the consequent development of trinitarian doctrine by the Western, Rome-dominated churches was formulated on the basis of Greek philosophical thinking prevalent in the West and not the kind of observationally-oriented, finite thinking of Hebrew culture. The early church (and their forerunners, the Druids, of the patriarchal tradition of Abraham, Melchizedek, Noah) did have a triad structure to their understanding of God; hints of it occur in the Bible. But they did not spin an elaborate theoretical doctrine largely devoid of scriptural support and heavily dependent on Greek reasoning. The Reformation did not really root out this pagan accommodation and we are stuck with it to this day though few Good Christians recognize that it is even there.

One of the telltale signs of this is the common use by translators of words having no bounds to them - what I call infinity-words, beginning with superlatives. To illustrate, in the plagues in Egypt, all the cattle die in one plague only to have boils in the next. (Some atheists use this to show how the Bible is inconsistent.) In English, superlatives such as all have a Greek logical meaning of "without exception" whereas in Hebrew thinking, it means "the preponderance of" - a statistical and not logical way of using superlatives. This analysis can be extended to words involving infinite time such as forever, ever, eternity, and eternal. The literal Hebrew has finite meanings that the translators have replaced with infinity-words. This cavalier reference to infinity in theology - especially in trying to "know God's name" is the point I am making.

I don't look on God saying in Exodus "I am that I am" as meaning, "It's none of your business," as you suggest. Rather, He is pointing to His eternal nature. We are bound by time, so we say things such as, "I was......", "I became.....", and "One day I will be......" Also, your post seems to cover something I didn't mention in my post to which you were replying. I wrote about what you had said about God the Father possibly being "grandfather" to Jesus Christ. I pointed to the numerous places in Scripture where God is called "God the Father," Jesus calls Him "My Father," and Jesus is called "the Son of God," not the grandson of God.

 

[Aaron112]

The Creator hates this:

ontologically.

 

[David Lamb]

The Creator hates this:

What do you mean, that God hates the word "ontologically"? If so, why? I may be wrong, because "ontologically" is not a word I use very often, but I think it means "connected with the meaning of existence." Why would God the Creator hate that? But perhaps you meant something else.

 

[Aaron112]

What do you mean, that God hates the word "ontologically"? If so, why? I may be wrong, because "ontologically" is not a word I use very often, but I think it means "connected with the meaning of existence." Why would God the Creator hate that? But perhaps you meant something else.

Good, I hope, to notice,. it looks like a "scholars" word, which carries with it a curse. God hides truth from 'scholars', even about salvation! This is His Good Pleasure so to do.

 

[David Lamb]

Good, I hope, to notice,. it looks like a "scholars" word, which carries with it a curse. God hides truth from 'scholars', even about salvation! This is His Good Pleasure so to do.

Are you thinking about this verse?:

“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.” (Lu 10:21 NKJV)

The bible uses the word "scholars" in a positive way, too:

“The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.” (Ec 12:11 NKJV)

I don't think it is right to say that certain words are "hated by God" because scholars use them.

 

[DennisF]

I don't look on God saying in Exodus "I am that I am" as meaning, "It's none of your business," as you suggest. Rather, He is pointing to His eternal nature. We are bound by time, so we say things such as, "I was......", "I became.....", and "One day I will be......" Also, your post seems to cover something I didn't mention in my post to which you were replying. I wrote about what you had said about God the Father possibly being "grandfather" to Jesus Christ. I pointed to the numerous places in Scripture where God is called "God the Father," Jesus calls Him "My Father," and Jesus is called "the Son of God," not the grandson of God.

I do not know the extent of your paleo-Hebrew language skills; I am not a Hebrew scholar. However, others who know more than I have commented on the verb conjugation in that sentence in Exodus and suggest that a closer rendering is "I will be who I will be." So unless you can provide a more ample description of the Hebrew grammar involved, this question remains unresolved. Despite that, the content of the statement is that of a simple tautology. As baseball players who lost say in interviews,"It is what it is." What does that mean? They have nothing more to say about the matter. And Yahweh had nothing more to say to Israel about his ontological nature.

As for the "grandfather" comment, I am not sure that you understood my point behind it. I am not calling Jesus "the grandson of God" but am suggesting that there is more to God than we have been told or probably even imagine. This relates back to the question of Genesis 1:1 and the scope of the Creation. A possibility is that shamayim and eretz in Gen. 1:1 is not intended to fit the modern cosmological model of the universe that is widely read back into Gen. 1:1. Perhaps the scope of the creation as intended by Genesis 1:1 is our galaxy, or our sector of the galaxy, or the solar system. These are possibilities but no further description is given that would allow us to determine more exactly the scope of Creation.

 

[DennisF]

"Gen 1:1 makes God the creator of the entire universe in its broadest sense" is a typical contemporary claim, not scripture. I am not in ultimate disagreement that the entire observable universe is the work of the Creator, but he might not be God the Father if Jesus is the son of the Father; he might be God the Grandfather. We simply are not told. God still retains a few profound secrets, especially about himself and what it even means ontologically to be God. Yahweh refused to tell Israel when queried on what makes him "tick" but gave a tautology in response: "I will be who I will be."

The sequence given in Genesis 1 is numerical and not necessarily chronological. The sequence, except the fourth day, fits well into the modern chronological view of how life developed on earth but the usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

 

[davetaff]

Hi Dennis
Thank you for your post you said

usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

I agree so tmhere has to be a better interpretation I suggest the forth day is 4000 years after Noah the sun is Jesus Christ the light of the world the moon the bride of Christ the reflected light of the sun the stars the children of God created by Christ and his bride.
The creation account should be read starting when Noah stepped of the ark and God began a new creation the end result man in the image of God.

Love and Peace
Dave