Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have been leaning toward Genesis 1-11 not being literal butthat creates a problem in Exodus
| 10 But the seventh day isthe sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that iswithin thy gates: |
| 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. |
Being literal does not require that the text be scientifically concordant. For example, many people interpret the 7 days as being about a literal 7-day temple inauguration. Which isn't about something like the age of the earth.
Well hold on a second, the days of Noah aren't even in Genesis chapter 1. So that wouldn't even relate to something like the age of the earth anyway.
People who accept evolution also accept that God created the universe. The difference is that "evolutionists" also accept the way He did it.
There can be no contradiction. Both the Bible and science talk about the same universe or creation.
Evolution confirms that the Bible is true. The very first word: "Beginning" science can confirm there was a beginning. It is the second word, God. In the beginning was God and God was the beginning. Science has to have something to observe so the beginning was when we had something to observe. In Science this is the planck unit or moment in time. In the Bible God is before time and everything comes from God. The Bible says "in the beginning God" NOT "God in the beginning". Then we have Creation. The rest of the Bible and all of science explains those three word and it all comes down to the word Beginning because we still have to define that word.
I've been thinking about this...and while I agree with the sentiment, I wonder if phrasing it as a negative might be better.
Science only accepts things that can be observed, measured, and repeated.
I tend to prefer dependent clause translations. Such as the NRSV or NRSVue, When God began to create, that doesn't actually say anything about material origins.
Formless and void in verse two is the material origin. When you add the word “when,” it shows that creation itself was “formless and void.” Day One is the origin, because you cannot make a copy of a copy of a copy without an original. Everything comes from that original. We call it the pattern or the template.
Well, that's not material origin. My pizza dough is formless and empty of toppings. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't materially exist. Lots of things are formless. That's an adjective that describes things that already exist. Same with empty. I have an empty glass on my table. Just because something is empty, that doesn't mean that it doesn't materially exist. My stomach is empty, but I can assure you that I indeed do have a stomach that exists in my body.
They both start out as a small seed. The universe is self‑contained. The pizza needs to draw elements from the soil. Adam came from the dust. The universe comes from God. We are an observer. We do not know what exists beyond our ability to observe. The universe begins as energy and then becomes physical (E = mc²). The double‑slit experiment shows you can observe one kind of information or the other, but not both at the same time. This is why people have debates: they see the same thing from different perspectives, just as you are showing me yours.
The text doesn't say anything about starting from a seed. It just says that the earth was formless and empty. Just as pizza dough is by analogy. Materially I agree that my dough did begin as a seed, but that's not what the text says so we can't simply assume that the be what the story is talking about.
Matthew 13:31–32 (KJV) Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed—smallest of seeds, but when it grows, it becomes a tree where birds rest. We know a tree is a whole eco system and there is nothing greater than the cedars of lebanon that Solomon used to build the temple.
I believe that scripture is infallible but that doesn't mean literal. Scripture is Spiritually perfect. Many look at what is written but don't see the Spiritual meaning.
Mathew of course isn't talking about creation in Genesis. He's talking about the kingdom of heaven. Jesus doesn't say anything about Genesis here.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not a new idea—it is the restoration of the original design. God is going to restore this world to His original plan and purpose.
