It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Chadrho said:

Are you implying I don't have the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2)

hello. What I was saying is that being filled with the Spirit, as above gives a glimpse of God's awesome power. Whether light came before the sun is really then irrelevant, God created them both and is not bound by them. He's so powerful and so out of our box we cannot comprehend it. God Bless

Chadrho said:

The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."

Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.

1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created. Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?" A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.

Click to expand...

Let's be honest and admit you make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. You "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is fusion from the sun.

2. You "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. You then place your own unproven assertions as the infallible rule / foundation from which to cast the entire historic account as "literal" because after all what is "most true" is your own unproven assertion. That is not logical your proposal is to munge the text into "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? that is complete nonsense. You only go down that road because you are convinced your unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Chadrho said:

The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."

Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.

2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that? How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?" I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?

Click to expand...

foods contain enzymes that activate genes.. we call it epigenome. Your argument is "from the void" of what you admit you don't know as if your having no knowledge of certain facts ...deletes those facts

Diet changes in babies affects their telomeres
Breast-Fed Babies May Have Longer Telomeres, Tied to Longevity

And what about the enzymes in the fruit of that tree you never saw? Did you claim that you know the properties of the fruit - the epigenome effects of that fruit? the chemistry involved to the point of declaring "God can't do that.. it is beyond him"??

The cell's ability to divide is limited by its telomeres.

For example stem cells express the enzyme telomerase which maintains and lengthens telomeres.

More on the chemistry of cell aging and death - and how telomerase affects it.
https://naturalbiohealth.com/2012/09/26/the-science-of-telemerase-and-telemere-lengthening/

But without that knowledge about enzymes and cell life - you expect to be taken seriously that nothing God can think of to put in food would change the effect of aging?? Seriously??

Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability.

Click to expand...

Attacking the reliability of scripture (The Word of God), is of high importance and matters to 'who'?? Just who had that as their # priority in Genesis 3??

miamited said:

Hi hal,

Well, I just think that it's essential to faith for His children to believe Him. I also question, as I think I wrote before, "How does God see those who proclaim to be His children, yet go around telling others to deny some of the truths of His word?" You don't seem to think it's important, as a believer, to tell another believer, "Look, we all know that science has proved that the universe is billions/trillions of years old. So we know that's true. If we then 'assume' that the years that Adam lived in the garden don't count in this genealogy which seems to pretty clearly show that the creation is not that old, then we can reconcile that difference between what some think that God has pretty clearly told us with what scientists are also telling us. Voile'!!!! It's almost like magic.

Now, let's just suppose that God is sitting on His throne and He did create this realm of existence just exactly as He has literally told us that He did. He is, after all, God, right? I believe that He can merely command that something be...and it is. What does He think of what that person is doing? Are they the good and faithful servant? We all have a tendency to pick out one or two teachings of the Scriptures and to say to ourselves and others, "Well, this is what counts". All that other stuff is just good to know. But God's word says that no unbeliever will have eternal life. Jesus said, when talking to his disciples that not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will be saved. He then spoke of 'christians' who wouldn't be saved. He described them as people who were claiming of themselves to do mighty and wonderful things in Jesus' name. So, let's please understand that this group of people may likely have well believed the easy stuff. That Jesus is God's Son who lived a life giving us the testimony of his Father and then dying for our sin, being buried and resurrected after three days in the tomb. After all, they all cry out to him Lord, Lord, and they all proclaim to have done great things 'in Jesus' name'. They were obviously people who believed of themselves to be christians and had nailed down the easy stuff. Jesus turns to them and says, "Away from me, you workers of iniquity."

Workers of iniquity. I define that as people whose works were against God's desire for them. Some of us continue to sin such sins as lust and greed and so forth. But is is also a sin to add to God's word. To be a false teacher.

Just something to think about. As I say, these passages just give me pause, when I hear people say that all you have to do is this or that and the rest of it really doesn't matter. However, hopefully you and I can now put this issue to rest as I think we both know pretty clearly how the other understands things.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Hi Ted, I believe in the Bible just as it is written, and I know it does not say the Earth is young. To claim the Bible says the Earth is young is adding something not in the scripture. I'll continue to be aware the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is. No one will separate me from the Word.

miamited said:

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Hi Ted, Here's a wonderful song:

Have a good evening/day!

Halbhh said:

Hi Ted, I believe in the Bible just as it is written, and I know it does not say the Earth is young. To claim the Bible says the Earth is young is adding something not in the scripture. I'll continue to be aware the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is. No one will separate me from the Word.

Click to expand...

Hi halbhh,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, the Scriptures do give us a fairly approximate age of the earth and the universe. God has repeated for us 3 times in the Scriptures that He made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. God's word then tell us that on the sixth of those days, He created Adam. God then goes on to tell us how many years Adam had lived until Seth was born to him. He then continues the genealogical account through the first generations telling us how old each father was when a certain son was born to that father. It's just simple math.

Now, because the science of man tells us that such an account cannot possibly be true, then we, as sinful man is so prone to do, come up with explanations as to how we can get God's word to agree with man's 'scientific testimony'. However, don't kid yourself, God's word does give us a fairly clear understanding of how long His creative work took to build the realm in which we live and then how long it took from the creation of Adam until certain generations came to pass. Then God does exactly the same thing after the flood and Noah and his 3 sons begin to replenish the earth after the flood. It's all right there in the Scriptures. I'm sure that you do believe in the bible, after all, you can buy them at just about any booksellers. The question is do you believe the Scriptures? Do you believe that the Scriptures are an account that God has given unto mankind of all that He has done and is doing that we, who live in this realm of His pleasure and creating, may be restored to Him from the sin nature loosed upon us through the one man Adam, to eternal life with Him through the second Son...Jesus!

Me, I believe the bible! I actually can see the entire working out of God's great plan of salvation from His creating this realm, just as He created the angelic realm, and when He's going to bring it all to a close and call each man to account for their life.

BTW, I agree that the song is good and it asks a very important question. Are you listening? However, I think an important part of that question is 'who' we are listening to. As I've said, God has spoken and in His speaking He has given us evidence of the age of the earth that is about as simple as 5th grade math.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi again halbhh,

You make the claim that no one will separate you from the word. But you don't believe that God made the realm in which we exist in 6 days. Or, is it that you do believe that God made this realm in which we live in six days, but He didn't create Adam on the sixth of those days as His word says? Or is it that you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures at all and it's all just up for grabs as to how we want to understand what God has written, but it can't be in the literal sense?

Would you mind telling me what you believe God's word means when He clearly says twice that in six days He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them?

If you then wouldn't mind, would you mind giving me your explanation of what God meant when He tells us that on the sixth day He created man in His image, in the likeness of God He created them both male and female, and blew into Adam the breath of life?

Would you finally explain to me what God meant in telling us that Adam was 130 years old when he begot his son, Seth?

I'm just curious how someone who claims to believe the Scriptures understands these things, but they don't really mean, apparently what they actually say.

If it's too much trouble, don't concern yourself. I would encourage though that it be something you might use James' admonition on. If any of us lacks wisdom we should go to God and ask.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

Hi queller,

You wrote:


I believe that to be an absolutely true statement. Evening and morning have nothing whatsoever to do with the sun or moon. They are merely the terms that God has used since the beginning of the creation to define two equal halves of the day. Just as today, we use a.m. and p.m. to define two equal havles of a day. However, our a.m. and p.m. are determined by the sun passing over the meridian (middle) of the sky. But they are both used to divide the 'day' into two smaller but equal parts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my post.

Morning and evening are concepts that are only given meaning in the context of the earth rotating on its axis, within the framework of an outside light source shining on the planet.

Morning:
1a : dawn tossed and turned all night until morning finally came
b : the time from sunrise to noon

Evening
1a : the latter part and close of the day and early part of the night
b chiefly Southern US and Midland US : afternoon
c : the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime

Morning and evening absolutely have to do with the sun.

miamited said:

Now, because the science of man tells us that such an account cannot possibly be true, then we, as sinful man is so prone to do, come up with explanations as to how we can get God's word to agree with man's 'scientific testimony'.

Click to expand...

To be accurate, that should read "because the fingerprints God left behind in the universe tells us that such an account cannot possibly be literally true, we should reexamine our interpretation of God's Word to bring harmony between the God's Word and the Fingerprints of God".

However, don't kid yourself, God's word does give us a fairly clear understanding of how long His creative work took to build the realm in which we live and then how long it took from the creation of Adam until certain generations came to pass. Then God does exactly the same thing after the flood and Noah and his 3 sons begin to replenish the earth after the flood.

Click to expand...

Have you ever actually looked at the population numbers and how they would have to look after the Flood?

Starting population:8
Growth rate: .018 (current rate)
Population at Babel (~200 years after the Flood):319
Population in 1500 AD (when we start to have solid numbers of the world's population and before the massive population boom caused by new methods of agriculture, medicine, etc): 1,178,868,903,793,200,000,000,000,000

Clearly something is wrong there. You can play with the numbers all you want here:
Population Growth Calculator

No matter what population growth rate you use, to get a reasonable number of able-bodied people to build the Tower at Babel (say 5,000 and that's low-balling it) you get a massively unreasonable number by 1500 AD.

For example:
Population growth rate: 3.2%
Population at Babel: 4,899
Population in 1500 AD: 681,056,321,886,350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Population growth rate: .5%
Population at Babel: 24
Population in 1500 AD:343,129,973 (this is approximately how many people history tells us we had at that time.

It's all right there in the Scriptures. I'm sure that you do believe in the bible, after all, you can buy them at just about any booksellers.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comparison. I can buy Harry Potter books at just about any bookseller as well. Should I therefore believe in Harry Potter?

The question is do you believe the Scriptures? Do you believe that the Scriptures are an account that God has given unto mankind of all that He has done and is doing that we, who live in this realm of His pleasure and creating, may be restored to Him from the sin nature loosed upon us through the one man Adam, to eternal life with Him through the second Son...Jesus!

Click to expand...

Of course we believe that. However, our own interpretations of the Word is where things get tricky. Even St. Augustine understood this over 1,500 years ago:

St. Augustine:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”"

Also St. Augustine:
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

Me, I believe the bible!

Click to expand...

I believe the Bible too. How many blind men were healed at Jericho?

Tolworth John said:

There are two ways to understand any written document.
1/ to read what is in the document.
2/toread previous ideas into a document.

Hebrew experts all confirm that the author of genesis intended to convey the idea that creation took place over 6 literal days.
That is why I believe in a yec, it is what the bible teaches.

Click to expand...

To read what is in a document without taking into account the history and culture in which is was written is to invite error before ever beginning. Should we take this book at face value without learning it's history and the culture in which it is written?

LINK

miamited said:

Hi again halbhh,

You make the claim that no one will separate you from the word. But you don't believe that God made the realm in which we exist in 6 days. Or, is it that you do believe that God made this realm in which we live in six days, but He didn't create Adam on the sixth of those days as His word says? Or is it that you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures at all and it's all just up for grabs as to how we want to understand what God has written, but it can't be in the literal sense?

Would you mind telling me what you believe God's word means when He clearly says twice that in six days He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them?

If you then wouldn't mind, would you mind giving me your explanation of what God meant when He tells us that on the sixth day He created man in His image, in the likeness of God He created them both male and female, and blew into Adam the breath of life?

Would you finally explain to me what God meant in telling us that Adam was 130 years old when he begot his son, Seth?

I'm just curious how someone who claims to believe the Scriptures understands these things, but they don't really mean, apparently what they actually say.

If it's too much trouble, don't concern yourself. I would encourage though that it be something you might use James' admonition on. If any of us lacks wisdom we should go to God and ask.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Ted, write shorter posts please. I thought this one thing was a possible place for you to consider: does day 6 absolutely encompass Genesis chapter 2 Garden of Eden? Answer: not necessarily. To assume that it does, instead of the other alternative possibility is just an idea, and the right and faithful thing to do is to say "I assume" or "I think" or "My guess is" or other such wording, so that you do not accidentally add to scripture what it doesn't have, and then claim what you added is scripture, accidentally.

We are not given the definite information that the 6th day creation of humans in chapter 1 was also the special moment of creation of Adam. It might have been....

Or not.

Another possible thing that may have happened is human peoples could have been created on day 6 (even thought it doesn't fit some doctrines) that did not include Adam and Eve. The simplest way to read the text of all is to not assume Adam was on day 6. One could think so, but it's an idea, not the scripture. If Adam was created separately, as a special creation, the first with a God-breathed spirit/soul, the first fully human soul, that would also fit the text. I know it's not convenient for some doctrinal ideas to realize that Adam may have been a separate special case, but it's possible anyway, even though it will contradict some doctrines (not all though).

Doctrines are attempts....variously (1 or several) to:

a) fill in things not said plainly anywhere in scripture -- causing needless argument over nothing: we don't know for sure, and the argument is ego/pride based.

b) simplify scripture -- inevitably oversimplifying and leaving some things out, because the person making the simplified doctrine was not omniscient, not above the Word of Christ, not superior to Him.

c) attempt to emphasize some true things as if other things did not also apply -- this is one of the most harmful of all aspects of doctrine when it happens. It is behind for instance most of the splits in churches in history.

------

What is better than doctrine?

Just trusting God, and accepting we cannot know all things about all things beyond the key mysteries revealed about salvation.

Queller said:

To read what is in a document without taking into account the history and culture in which is was written is to invite error before ever beginning. Should we take this book at face value without learning it's history and the culture in which it is written?

LINK

Click to expand...

That can help, but it is not esential.
The basic rule in law, in literature, in life is to believe what someone tells one untill it is demonstrated as being untrue.

With the bible many people come to it already biased against it.
That historians have demonstrated that it is an accurate record of history is of course a challenge for those determined to some how undermine what it planly teaches.

How does culture affect genesis basic premise that God created everything without using evolution.

Hi halbhh,

Thanks for your reply:

Halbhh said:

does day 6 absolutely encompass Genesis chapter 2 Garden of Eden?

Click to expand...

No. Genesis chapter 2 covers a lot of days. It opens by saying, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." That's the synopsis version of all six days. Then it goes on to tell us about God's setting aside the seventh day for rest. When it begins to focus on Adam and Eve it starts off, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Again, no limitation for us to think that this is only going to be about the sixth day, only. I'm not sure why you confuse the Genesis 2 narrative as somehow being the same as what God said that He did on the sixth day in Genesis 1.

You then wrote:

Halbhh said:

We are not given the definite information that the 6th day creation of humans in chapter 1 was also the special moment of creation of Adam. It might have been....

Click to expand...

I disagree! As far as the subject at hand, dating the creation, the account of the sixth day tells us all we need to know to do that. We are absolutely given "then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

God created man and He even spoke to the man on the sixth day. We know this because it is only after this account that God then closes out the sixth day by telling us, "And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

In Genesis 2, God then gives us a small amount of filler information as to how mankind got started on the earth and He tells us that He named that first man created as...Adam. Even Jesus confirms this for us when he visited us. The man created on the sixth day of God's creative work was Adam and he was the same Adam who, at the age of 130 had a son named Seth. He was also the same Adam through whom Jesus tells us that all mankind fell under the curse of sin.

You then replied:

Halbhh said:

Just trusting God, and accepting we cannot know all things about all things beyond the key mysteries revealed about salvation.

Click to expand...

I agree that there are some things that God has not told us, and for those things we will have to 'trust' Him. However, for me, this isn't one of those things.

You see, I believe that pretty much every word that is found in the Scriptures was written for our understanding. Surely God didn't write the Scriptures so that the cows could know about Him or some race of space aliens. They were written for our edification that we might know personally the one true and living God and all that He has done that we might have life. So, I have to ask myself, "Why did God write two accounts of genealogical heritage and include in each one the age of a father when he had a child and then continue that from father to that specific child and then from that specific child to one of that mature child's specific children?" I mean, God could have written the genealogical records without those ages just as He did in Matthew and Luke's account of the genealogies.

I believe that God was purposeful in including in these two genealogical records those ages. I believe that because if I believe that if God's purpose was just to show how men progressed upon the earth, then He would have just told us that Adam begat Seth and Seth begat...Just as He did in the latter accounts of Matthew and Luke.

Secondly, whether I believe that God did have the purpose for which I am giving Him credit for...the ages are there! Those ages of the fathers as they had a specific child and then the age of that child when he had his specific child, are there. Now, you're free to allow yourself to be confused as to the length of day six or what all God did on day six, but that doesn't have any bearing on the seemingly clear fact that once Adam was created that genealogical record stands as an accurate accounting of years from Adam.

Finally, and I'll try to wrap this up to fit your expectations of the length of my posts, I believe that God is purposeful and I believe that God created this realm for the very purpose of building a place for man to live and that's it. So, for me, there wouldn't be any reason for the universe to have existed for some eons of ages before God created the man for which He created the earth and heavens. I can't see God sitting at His big picture window before His throne and saying, "Oooooh, look at that one! I certainly outdid myself when I created that star and notice how perfect those planets came out." No! My confession is that God created the heavens and the earth as a place for a creature that He would make called 'man' to live and one day, according to God's word, He's going to pretty much just as quickly bring it all to a close. We were created for God's pleasure by a God who can create with the mere command of His voice and He didn't need millions or billions of years to bring all this realm to fruition.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Tolworth John said:

That can help, but it is not esential.
The basic rule in law, in literature, in life is to believe what someone tells one untill it is demonstrated as being untrue.

With the bible many people come to it already biased against it.
That historians have demonstrated that it is an accurate record of history is of course a challenge for those determined to some how undermine what it planly teaches.

How does culture affect genesis basic premise that God created everything without using evolution.

Click to expand...

Consider how it's useless arguing as if it matters for things about which there isn't a total certainty. We are told nothing at all about how much time passed on the outside Earth while Adam and Eve had Life (timeless eternal life) with the Tree of Life there with them, before they lost the access to the Tree of Life, and faced the new reality of Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.".

While some assume (generally without awareness) that time duration of the Garden of Eden was zero or just 1 day or some short time....in reality we have zero indication how much ordinary mortal Earth years passed for the outside world while Adam and Eve were there, seemingly with Life itself(!).

It could have been thousands of years in ordinary time in the outside world, for instance, even millions of years. There's just no information on that.

But we do know on the other hand about how much time passed after Adam and Eve left the Garden until the time of Christ, if we pick a genealogy and assume it is complete. Why do I have any concern at all about these debates then?

Because the young earth assertion does mislead some of the lost to falsely think God cannot exist since the Earth appears to be old. It's preached instead of the gospel very often! Therefore I wonder if the young Earth preachers (preaching it even above the Gospel) are under the influence of the enemy. We should pray for them that they stop elevating their theory of young earth into some kind of gospel-like elevation, and honestly confess it is merely only their mere understanding (only merely that). That would be humble. Only the humble can enter heaven.

Hi all,

Well, I think I've provided the evidence on which I base my understanding of the creation account. I've studied it long and hard and I was, in fact, an old earth, evolutionary believer before I came to know the Lord, so I've been on both sides of this fence.

For me, the Scriptures offer ample evidence that the six days were pretty much regular days like we experience today, except that for the first couple of days the sun neither rose nor set, but the sun has nothing to do with how the length of a day is determined. So, there not having been any sun or moon or stars in the heavens has no bearing on whether a 'day' passed upon the earth.

For me, the Scriptures offer ample evidence that we are living in a realm created by our God somewhere around 6,000 years ago as we and God measure time in this created realm. For me, the Scriptures provide ample evidence that just as God created this realm of existence fairly quickly, He is also going to wrap it up just before His day of judgment with relatively the same speed. The stars in the heavens are going to flee just about as quickly as they spread out when God created each one by name.

So, I think I have answered the question put forth in the OP as to it being impossible for God to have created this realm just as He said He has done. For me, I have absolutely no problem taking that account found in Genesis as the literal account of how I came to be living in my little city in my little home in the year of 2019. For me, it provides a greater realization of just how awesome our God really is that He can created an entire realm of existence out of nothing; create it to operate perfectly on the day that it was created. The God that can do that is my God.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

We know all things are possible for our Lord God, the maker of the heavens and the Earth. For the heavens (the Universe) and the Earth to be very old fits perfectly with the scriptures, and time is no problem for our God.

For the Eternal One, time is little or nothing, and a thousand years are as if a day.

public hermit said:

The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."

Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.

1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created. Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?" A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.

2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that? How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?" I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?

Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability. What matters is grasping the spiritual truths being communicated in the account, e.g. God exists, God is Creator, creation is not God, creation is good, humanity is created in the divine image, sin is a killer, humanity is in need of redemption, a promise of redemption has been made, etc.

Believing that something is historically true does not change anything. I believe Billie Holiday is the greatest jazz singer of all time, that doesn't somehow change my life. Arguments over taking the creation account in Genesis literally miss the point (including the argument I am now making). The point is the truths being communicated via the account. And, happily for those of us who accept the account, science can't communicate those truths to us, only the account in Genesis can do that.

Does what I am saying make sense?

Click to expand...

I didn't have time to read all the replies, but I agree completely with what you've said. It's my firm belief that no one - not even Ken Ham - actually believes in Young Earth Creationism. People like Ham are willing to live in a state of cognitive dissonance, knowing what they purport to believe is absurd, for the sake of telling themselves that they are pleasing God with their faithfulness.

But faithfulness to WHAT? Genesis 1 certainly doesn't demand a Young Earth interpretation. If you make Christianity look like a religion for idiots, is your supposed faithfulness pleasing to God or furthering the Great Commission?

God blessed us with a universe that operates according to laws and is understandable through scientific investigation and reasoning. He further blessed us with minds that are capable of such investigation and reasoning. When your interpretation of the Bible forces you into a position that is at odds with the results from every scientific discipline by billions years, it's your interpretation of the Bible that must give way. 14,700,000,000 vs. 6,500 - really?

Scholars understand the genres of ancient literature into which Genesis 1 and the rest of Genesis fit. There is no way that the ancient authors thought they were writing history or science. They were, as you say, expressing spiritual truths as mythology, fairy tales and poetry often do. The modern phenomenon of reading Genesis as though it were history and science, and using this as a litmus test for whether one is a "real Christian," is embarrassing to the faith.

I heard no less an apologist than William Lane Craig say just the other day that almost no one in the ranks of serious Bible scholars takes the Genesis accounts literally anymore.

public hermit said:

Thank you for your reply. I caught a good bit of grief for this post, so I appreciate someone who sees what I am saying. In hindsight, I would have stated things in a little more generous way. When I first came to faith, I took a pretty literal reading of Genesis until I had spent more time studying. I want to be sensitive to the faith of others, to the place they are at, while also being honest with how I now understand things. Oh well, I am learning and growing as we all are. Thank you, again.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking myself that my post was a bit snarky and could have been more generous to Young Earthers. But when every scientific discipline points toward a creation that is VASTLY, VASTLY older than Young Earthers suggest, and Young Earthers are driven to arguments such as "maybe the speed of light used to be different" or "maybe God planted those Cambrian fossils to give the appearance of antiquity," I have a hard time keeping a straight face. On the other hand, I do believe that the work coming out of the Intelligent Design movement, such as that of Stephen Meyer, is very compelling and exciting.