Creation, An Exposition of Genesis and the New Testament Witness

[mark kennedy]

When did essential doctrine become an 'ism', creation is a core Judaeo Christian doctrine. We have no reason as Christians to shy away from the historical narrative that the doctrine is based on. There are a lot of ways to go with this but I can sum up the first point with three words, 'created', 'made' and 'set'. There is a progression of thought in the Biblical account, certain things were 'created', the idea being a new creation generally being understood to be from nothing (ex nihilo). Then there is 'made' which is something made from something else, that's kind of an oversimplification but still the general idea. Then there is set where God makes adjustments to certain aspects and elements. It's commonly believed among creationists that the sun was created on day 4 but a closer look at the words and phrases used indicates that God was simply adjusting the 'firmament' to make the lights in the sky visible on a regular basis from the surface of the earth.

The Genesis Account of Creation:

Thought I would post up some of my notes from my studies of Genesis 1. One interesting point is that there are three different words used to describe God's activities during creation week. Just hoping someone might take an interest in a more detailed exposition of the text.

Day 1: God 'lets' the light in, thus creating the first day (Gen. 1:4).
Day 2: God creates the upper atmosphere, called the 'firmament' (Gen. 1:7).
Day 3: God separates the land from the seas and creates plant life (Gen. 1:10).
Day 4: God then, 'sets', the heavenly lights in the visible sky (Gen. 1:17).
Day 5: God creates the birds of the air and marine life (Gen. 1:21).
Day 6: Finally, God creates the beasts of the field and Man (Gen. 1:25).​

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)

It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.

Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc.

The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.

Original Sin

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

To receive Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to sound doctrine. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whales and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this in Romans, taken chapter by chapter:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

 

[Papias]

Christians aren't disputing that God did the creating. They only discussion is over *how* God did the creating - whether that was by an evolutionary process or through making things pop into existence. That's why Hebrews 1:11 is clear that God is behind any process we observe in our universe. That's also why theistic evolution is the same thing as "evolutionary creationism".

Of course God did the creating. We all agree on that.

in Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Christians aren't disputing that God did the creating. They only discussion is over *how* God did the creating - whether that was by an evolutionary process or through making things pop into existence. That's why Hebrews 1:11 is clear that God is behind any process we observe in our universe. That's also why theistic evolution is the same thing as "evolutionary creationism".

Of course God did the creating. We all agree on that.

in Christ-

Papias

I think it's clear from the text that God created life by miraculous means in the space of six days. There is also a big renovation that the angels celebrate, according to mention made in Job. God creates the heavens and the earth and then later returns to earth to make it suitable for life, and then, to create life. The emphasis is on God creating the universe, life in general and man in particular.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)
​

Creation is this sense is clearly mutually exclusive with naturalistic processes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

I think it's clear from the text that God created life by miraculous means in the space of six days. There is also a big renovation that the angels celebrate, according to mention made in Job. God creates the heavens and the earth and then later returns to earth to make it suitable for life, and then, to create life. The emphasis is on God creating the universe, life in general and man in particular.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)
​

Creation is this sense is clearly mutually exclusive with naturalistic processes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You can think that your interpretation is clear, and that's fine. Many other Christians don't go with your interpretation, including the majority of churches by membership. By claiming that your personal interpretation is "essential doctrine", you are saying that most Christians the world over are not Christian.

I don't think that helps advance the Kingdom of God.

In Christ- Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

You can think that your interpretation is clear, and that's fine. Many other Christians don't go with your interpretation, including the majority of churches by membership. By claiming that your personal interpretation is "essential doctrine", you are saying that most Christians the world over are not Christian.

I don't think that helps advance the Kingdom of God.

In Christ- Papias

Hang on a minute, show me anywhere in the passage where you have figurative language. Any basis in the context for a comparative analogy, no 'like' or 'as', or the literary equivalent. Absent that we are left only with the interpretation being historical narrative. I'm not interpreting much, the exegesis is based on lexicon definition of the key terms, verbs actually, translated 'created', 'made' and 'set'.

I like to keep an open mind, my exegetical notes are at your disposal, the text should be very familiar by now. Let's see your exposition, interpretation, show me Papias. I've seen you do a couple of fairly interesting expositions of scientific literature. What do you say, how about a Biblical exposition of the first chapter of the Holy Bible?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[archer75]

During these discussions there is usually a failure to define the terms.

You ask for a demonstration of figurative language in this passage. I assume you mean that, absent any indicators that something "is figurative," then it is "literal." But what is literal? I'm not saying "prove that the passage is to be taken literally." But what does it mean to take it literally? It means that the words have their literal meaning. Well, what is the literal meaning of each word, and how do we know that?

 

[mark kennedy]

During these discussions there is usually a failure to define the terms.

You ask for a demonstration of figurative language in this passage. I assume you mean that, absent any indicators that something "is figurative," then it is "literal." But what is literal? I'm not saying "prove that the passage is to be taken literally." But what does it mean to take it literally? It means that the words have their literal meaning. Well, what is the literal meaning of each word, and how do we know that?

With the parables for instance, they usually start, 'the kingdom is likened to', or something along those lines. It's a literary feature, indicating the writer is making a comparison. You don't have them in Genesis 1, what you have is an historical narrative just like you do through the first five chapters of the OT and the NT. These passages are intended to be read as history, it's really as simple as that. You don't have an unbroken list of relative time dates spanning the entire Old Testament, going back to Genesis one, confirmed in the New Testament witness, for a parable.

 

[archer75]

With the parables for instance, they usually start, 'the kingdom is likened to', or something along those lines. It's a literary feature, indicating the writer is making a comparison. You don't have them in Genesis 1, what you have is an historical narrative just like you do through the first five chapters of the OT and the NT. These passages are intended to be read as history, it's really as simple as that. You don't have an unbroken list of relative time dates spanning the entire Old Testament, going back to Genesis one, confirmed in the New Testament witness, for a parable.

Fine, assume for the moment that we take it "literally" or "historically." But what is a "day"? What are beasts "of the field"? What about arboreal creatures? How do we know how to take these things "literally"?

Suppose I'm not arguing against taking this "literally" but I want to know what "literally" or "historically" means. What would you tell me?

 

[mark kennedy]

Fine, assume for the moment that we take it "literally" or "historically." But what is a "day"? What are beasts "of the field"? What about arboreal creatures? How do we know how to take these things "literally"?

Suppose I'm not arguing against taking this "literally" but I want to know what "literally" or "historically" means. What would you tell me?

Well obviously the beasts, 'of the field', are the original parents of living creatures that span the globe in all their vast array. For me it came down to genetics, over time genomes collect mutations, mistakes in the copy of DNA. At this time there were pristine gene pools so much more diversity was possible and they flourished.

 

[archer75]

Well obviously the beasts, 'of the field', are the original parents of living creatures that span the globe in all their vast array. For me it came down to genetics, over time genomes collect mutations, mistakes in the copy of DNA. At this time there were pristine gene pools so much more diversity was possible and they flourished.

Could you say more about that last sentence? I don't know what pristine gene pools are ir why they would allow diversity.

 

[mark kennedy]

Could you say more about that last sentence? I don't know what pristine gene pools are ir why they would allow diversity.

In the G2 cycle of the cell replication process the DNA is copied. If the quality control standards are not met the cell is recycled in a process known as apostasies. Invariably mistakes get through and sometimes the become permanent parts of the genome. When it gets into a gene, like the GULO gene, a gene that is supposed to produce vitamin C, the descendants have to get their vitamin C from other sources. One of the biggest problems with inbreeding is that you get a shrinking gene pool, the effect is called bottlenecks. If you were to have a child by your cousin, a common practice about a hundred and fifty years, you would get this bottleneck effect. One of the first things to be compromised is the immune system.

There are an abundance of genes that are broken in our genomes and in the genomes of life around the globe. You have less variety not more because the gene pools are shrinking due to mutations. In the time just after the Flood the genomes had not accumulated these deleterious mutations, or the bottlenecks that result from adaptive evolution. The pristine genomes had much larger gene pools.

Oh and by the way, Abraham married someone closely related to him and Adam's children married their siblings. Early on it's not a problem but after a while the genes can't cross over normally so the gene pool shrinks and mutations accumulate.

 

[Papias]

What do you say, how about a Biblical exposition of the first chapter of the Holy Bible?

I'd be happy to, Mark, but that's off topic on this thread until the main topic of the thread is addressed. Your opening post starts off claiming that this is "essential doctrine". As pointed out, that claims that Jesus will send hundreds of millions of believers to hell and watch them burn, even if they call on Jesus and only Jesus for salvation, confess their sins, and ask for those sins to be forgiven by the blood of Jesus' death and resurrection, but because they weren't young earth creationists, that wasn't enough.

Really? Mark, you have told me more than once that we agree that creationism isn't a salvation issue, yet here you start a whole thread claiming that it is exactly that? I think that the biggest problem with your claim that unless one has the right hermeneutics of Genesis one, they are not Christian, is that it weakens the power of Christ's sacrifice, relegating it to a minor point among others. The fact that it's against forum rules is not nearly as important.

In fact, I wonder if you've changed your tune on this? In the past, you have many times said it's not a salvation issue, to me and to others. Here is one example of what you've said, from 2004:

mark kennedy wrote:

theywhosowintears said:

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven) ​

I'm with Remus on one point, this is not a salvation issue. On the other hand the ressurection is a salvation history and if it didn't happen as described in the New Testament we are still in our sins. Try to keep this in perspective, the Gospel is rooted and grounded in history and salvation is God's greatest act of creation. He makes us new creatures in Christ, has set Jesus at His right hand and done wonder without number throughout human history. Faith is not about understanding everthing about how God works but believing that the One who makes the promise if faithfull.

Don't doubt your salvation because you don't have all the answers about how God made the Universe. Put your faith in the promise, not your ability to understand things that are too wonderfull for you.
Creation is it a neccessary foundation?​

However, more recently, and with this thread, you are stating that a literal view of Genesis 1 is a salvation issue. As pointed out before, all of us agree that God did the creating, but you now appear to be saying that one's guesses about *how* God did that creating will send one to hell unless it's the literal view that you hold. That's at least a little arrogant, and much worse, render Jesus' death and resurrection as impotent.

As for the specific hermeneutics, we could get into those weeds - and I've laid it out to you many times anyway. We could get into discussion of the demonstrable falsehoods you've already said on this thread. I see that you've already distracted Hengesthora by those details and pulled Hengesthora off into those weeds. That would fit better as a thread devoted to that topic in the general forum than the creationist forum, of course.

But all of that is irrelevant until we address the topic of this thread - that you are taking away from the salvific power of Jesus' death and resurrection by claiming that accepting your own personal view of Genesis 1 is essential doctrine, putting yourself ahead of Jesus (perhaps inadvertently?).

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

I'd be happy to, Mark, but that's off topic on this thread until the main topic of the thread is addressed. Your opening post starts off claiming that this is "essential doctrine". As pointed out, that claims that Jesus will send hundreds of millions of believers to hell and watch them burn, even if they call on Jesus and only Jesus for salvation, confess their sins, and ask for those sins to be forgiven by the blood of Jesus' death and resurrection, but because they weren't young earth creationists, that wasn't enough.

Well that was creative, in a thread entitled 'an exposition of Genesis', an exposition of Genesis is off topic. Now some rambling fabrication about throwing hundreds of millions into the lake of fire, for reasons known only to you. Creation is essential doctrine because it's requisite to the gospel, God can only deliver on his promise of a new creation if he was the Creator, 'in the beginning'.

I know what your problem is, you don't want to do an exposition because the text is contradicting your worldview.

Really? Mark, you have told me more than once that we agree that creationism isn't a salvation issue, yet here you start a whole thread claiming that it is exactly that? I think that the biggest problem with your claim that unless one has the right hermeneutics of Genesis one, they are not Christian, is that it weakens the power of Christ's sacrifice, relegating it to a minor point among others. The fact that it's against forum rules is not nearly as important.

Your the one running things off on a tangent, trying to argue this is somehow a personal indictment. It's an exposition and the focus is supposed to be on the text, just like the OP was exclusively on the text. You want to make it about personalities. It is true that the same power the brought light from darkness give light to every soul that comes into the world. That God creating life is inextricably linked to the New Testament witness:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)
​

Notice the use of terms like; 'light', 'made', 'beginning' and especially, 'life'. It is no coincidence that this is reminiscent of Genesis one. It is further no coincidence that Isaiah used the exact same term, 'bara', to speak of the creation of the nation of Israel:

But now thus saith the LORD that created H1254 thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel. (Isaiah 43:7)

I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator H1254 of Israel, your King. (43:15)
​

What these pedantic personal remarks lack, is an exposition of the text. What your doctrinal discussion is missing is an actual doctrinal statement.

In fact, I wonder if you've changed your tune on this? In the past, you have many times said it's not a salvation issue, to me and to others. Here is one example of what you've said, from 2004:

I don't care what you dredged up from 2004, right now we are talking about Genesis one and the New Testament witness concerning creation.

​

I'm with Remus on one point, this is not a salvation issue. On the other hand the ressurection is a salvation history and if it didn't happen as described in the New Testament we are still in our sins. Try to keep this in perspective, the Gospel is rooted and grounded in history and salvation is God's greatest act of creation. He makes us new creatures in Christ, has set Jesus at His right hand and done wonder without number throughout human history. Faith is not about understanding everthing about how God works but believing that the One who makes the promise if faithfull.

Original creation and the resurrection are the same power being expressed in time and space.

​

Don't doubt your salvation because you don't have all the answers about how God made the Universe. Put your faith in the promise, not your ability to understand things that are too wonderfull for you.
Creation is it a neccessary foundation?

This isn't about how God created the universe as much as what the Scriptures say regarding the fact that God did create it. It's an exposition and the passage in Job is informative. God created the world and all that is in it and the heart of the emphasis in Genesis one is God created life. This is foundational to what Christians have always believed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God, 
begotten, not made,
consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

I was a Christian for a year, maybe longer, before I got the incarnation. That doctrine gave me fits, I was interested in Christian apologetics, every single one of them wanted to emphasis the incarnation first thing. This was nothing new, the Trinity and the incarnation have been a target of heretical (non-christian) teaching throughout church history. The doctrine of creation has also been defended against those who would argue, the Epicureans for example, that, 'deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all':

In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are selforiginated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these ; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all. (The Incarnation of the Word of God, by St. Athanasius)​

The creation, the incarnation, the creation of Adam and being a new creature in Christ are all inextricably linked. This is readily apparent from an exposition of the requisite texts.

However, more recently, and with this thread, you are stating that a literal view of Genesis 1 is a salvation issue. As pointed out before, all of us agree that God did the creating, but you now appear to be saying that one's guesses about *how* God did that creating will send one to hell unless it's the literal view that you hold. That's at least a little arrogant, and much worse, render Jesus' death and resurrection as impotent.

Then show me your exposition of Genesis one. I'm talking about what the text actually says and your trying to drive the discussion off on so many tangents it's hard to keep track.

As for the specific hermeneutics, we could get into those weeds - and I've laid it out to you many times anyway. We could get into discussion of the demonstrable falsehoods you've already said on this thread. I see that you've already distracted Hengesthora by those details and pulled Hengesthora off into those weeds. That would fit better as a thread devoted to that topic in the general forum than the creationist forum, of course.

Hengesthora asked a few questions, I answered them the best I could. I'm not trying to get anyone into systematic hermeneutics although there is a very simple and easy to understand hermeneutic principle that is easily understood. God created life and the promise of eternal life is inextricably linked to God being Creator.

But all of that is irrelevant until we address the topic of this thread - that you are taking away from the salvific power of Jesus' death and resurrection by claiming that accepting your own personal view of Genesis 1 is essential doctrine, putting yourself ahead of Jesus (perhaps inadvertently?).

In Christ-

Papias

I started the thread, I think I know what the topic is. An exposition of Genesis is in order and absent from your arguments. If we wanted to discuss salvation as a discrete doctrine we could have done that in another forum, but that's not what I was doing in the OP. I did an exposition of Genesis 1 and you refused to address it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Your the one running things off on a tangent, trying to argue this is somehow a personal indictment.

It's not a "tangent" when it's based on the first two sentences of the OP. You started the OP of this thread with:

When did essential doctrine become an 'ism', creation is a core Judaeo Christian doctrine. We have no reason as Christians to shy away from the historical narrative that the doctrine is based on.​

Even in this post you confirm that, with:

Creation is essential doctrine because it's requisite to the gospel, God can only deliver on his promise of a new creation if he was the Creator, 'in the beginning'.

As pointed out, we all agree that God was the creator, regardless of how he created. Your "exposition" is to "prove" your view of how God created. Your main point is that your literal, young earth, evolution denying interpretation of Genesis 1 is required for salvation. Here's the definition of "essential":

essential [uh-sen-shuh l]
adjective
1.
absolutely necessary; indispensable:​

If I'm wrong about your position, then please, by all means, clarify it. How about the idea that how one thinks God created is an important influence? That's not my position, but do you like that?

I fully accept, as Christians, those Christians with other beliefs as to how God created. I expect that Heaven will (indeed, does) include plenty of Christians who think God divinely made things pop into existence in 6 days, who think He did so over millions of years, who are day-age creationists, theistic evolution supporters, Christians who aren't sure how He created, Christians who don't care, Christians who think He created everything instantly (as Augustine thought), and many other ideas I haven't thought of. I don't see any belief as to how God created as being "essential" to being a Christian and being saved.

Now, mark, this is very simple. If you can say the same as that blue text, then my entire previous post is shown to be wrong, and I'll apologize. If not, then my post is shown to be correct. Can you?

So mark, do you or don't you agree that one's belief about how God created is not a salvation issue?

Do we differ on this point, or not? Thanks-

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not a "tangent" when it's based on the first two sentences of the OP. You started the OP of this thread with:

When did essential doctrine become an 'ism', creation is a core Judaeo Christian doctrine. We have no reason as Christians to shy away from the historical narrative that the doctrine is based on.​

Even in this post you confirm that, with:


As pointed out, we all agree that God was the creator, regardless of how he created. Your "exposition" is to "prove" your view of how God created. Your main point is that your literal, young earth, evolution denying interpretation of Genesis 1 is required for salvation. Here's the definition of "essential":

essential [uh-sen-shuh l]
adjective
1.
absolutely necessary; indispensable:​

If I'm wrong about your position, then please, by all means, clarify it. How about the idea that how one thinks God created is an important influence? That's not my position, but do you like that?

I fully accept, as Christians, those Christians with other beliefs as to how God created. I expect that Heaven will (indeed, does) include plenty of Christians who think God divinely made things pop into existence in 6 days, who think He did so over millions of years, who are day-age creationists, theistic evolution supporters, Christians who aren't sure how He created, Christians who don't care, Christians who think He created everything instantly (as Augustine thought), and many other ideas I haven't thought of. I don't see any belief as to how God created as being "essential" to being a Christian and being saved.

Now, mark, this is very simple. If you can say the same as that blue text, then my entire previous post is shown to be wrong, and I'll apologize. If not, then my post is shown to be correct. Can you?

So mark, do you or don't you agree that one's belief about how God created is not a salvation issue?

Do we differ on this point, or not? Thanks-

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Do the exposition or you can forget me chasing this in circles. That's the point of the thread, not past remarks whether or not they might be relevant. First we discuss the text, then the doctrine of creation and then if your still interested we can revisit previous discussions.

 

[Papias]

This isn't about previous discussions. You can ignore your 2004 words if you like. This is about this thread, which starts off claiming that holding your particular idea of how God created is essential to being a Christian. The fact that you won't simply state that you accept Christians as Christians regardless of whether or not they agree with your idea of how God created speaks volumes.

It looks like you've confirmed my previous post. Darn. I was hoping you'd show me to be wrong. I'd much rather be wrong and see you accepting all of our sisters and brothers in Christ than the opposite.

In Christ- Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

That wouldn't be right. There was no sun for the first few "days" and what time zone was used to measure 24/hours from? A "Day" is a continuous moving line of light that travels around the globe.
From space, there is no 24 hour cycle.

Great point, but that's not really what the Scriptures are telling us. The sun, moon and stars existed day 4, God just made some adjustments to the atmosphere to make them visible from the surface of the earth. The earth originally was covered in darkness and water. God's work during creation week separates light from darkness, water above from water below, land from water etc. On day 4 the lights in the heavens were 'formed' and 'set' to be lights to govern the passing of the seasons. The Hebrew word used for 'created' is never used on day 4, God wasn't calling them into existence, just making them readily visible from the surface of the earth.

 

[archer75]

I think creating the universe is well beyond "miraculous" no matter "how" you think it was done. I mean, there was no human there to observe it in any case. So what we're doing either way is saying "I've decided to interpret these phenomena (a religious book / measurements made by tech) so as to imagine that, had there been a human observer present at that time, it 'would have' looked a certain way."

Whether these things just "popped" into existence (and the text doesn't say they popped fully formed) or came about through natural-looking processes...sounds like a miracle to me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Great point, but that's not really what the Scriptures are telling us. The sun, moon and stars existed day 4, God just made some adjustments to the atmosphere to make them visible from the surface of the earth. The earth originally was covered in darkness and water. God's work during creation week separates light from darkness, water above from water below, land from water etc. On day 4 the lights in the heavens were 'formed' and 'set' to be lights to govern the passing of the seasons. The Hebrew word used for 'created' is never used on day 4, God wasn't calling them into existence, just making them readily visible from the surface of the earth.

So the sun was not visible for 3 days. My point stands that rotation compared to the sun in one point in the sky, plus a rotating reference point, not likely too near a pole is needed for 24 hours.
From space there is no "above" or below. Just this way or that way. Use your God finger to point.

 

[mark kennedy]

So the sun was not visible for 3 days. My point stands that rotation compared to the sun in one point in the sky, plus a rotating reference point, not likely too near a pole is needed for 24 hours.
From space there is no "above" or below. Just this way or that way. Use your God finger to point.

The perspective of Genesis one is from the surface of the earth, not space. Light could get through just as it is on a rainy day but you can't see the sun, moon or stars for the clouds. When creation starts there is utter darkness, then God says, 'let there be light'. Over the course of creation God is adjusting the atmosphere, separating the water above from the waters below. Apparently the think clouds went all the way to the surface of the earth, instead of clouds floating above the earth as we see now. This thinning out of the clouds continued at least until day four when the sun, moon and stars became regularly visible.