Creation as the Bible explains it

[SBG]

This has been on my mind for a bit of time, and I have recently shared it, only to have others here say it is false. I honestly didn't expect anything different that what was given. There are a few points that we must be aware of about the creation account in Genesis.

TE's view Adam and Eve in a couple of different ways. First, they weren't real people. Second, there wasn't a real fall. This has serious complications for Christian teaching. TE's try to explain that Adam and Eve are not necessary to believe as real people, and some suggest we shouldn't believe they are real people. They explain that we are fallen, but there was no literal fall. This too suggests things about God that are not true.

The problems that arise from this are the following:

1. If Adam and Eve weren't real, who sinned to cause the fall?

TE's will follow this up by saying we have all sinned and fallen. This doesn't follow in a Biblical understanding, because this infers that God originally created us as sinful beings, without the choice to choose to follow God or not. This denies free will.

2. If Adam and Eve weren't real, why does Paul teach of a second Adam?

TE's will say that the first Adam is figurative and the second Adam is literal. We could be thankful that atleast the believe the greater of the two is real. This argument doesn't follow Scriptural either, or in the way Paul teaches. Paul is not talking about a parable or anything such like one. Paul wouldn't take an important subject like Jesus Christ's redemption and compare with a myth. Paul speaks of a literal and historical Adam.

The second Adam does what the first Adam could have done, but did not do. The first Adam could have not sinned against God. Adam did not know of evil, therefore he could keep from it, by listening to what God told him. Adam was original created sinless, with the choice to follow God or not. Here God exercised His love by giving free will to the first being, TE's ignorantly refute this when saying he [Adam] wasn't real.

Adam and Eve could have been sinless and brought sinless children into the world. But since their fall, we are born as slaves to sin. Only the redemption of Jesus Christ can free us. For one man fell, and One Man restored.

TE's will try to make you believe that there was not a real fall of mankind. They will say we are just fallen in nature, but not by a literal event. This suggests that God created us to be sinful, to be rebelious against Him. So if God created us to be this way, then God cannot extend His wrath upon us, if we are just acting as He created us.

Some will try and take this argument and turn it around. They will say that we are sinful and God did create us. They will say God knew this would happen. They are correct, but they ignorantly forget something. It was man who turned his back on God, by choice, not God who created us and then turned His back on us.

TE's will further say, if you do not accept their initial reasoning, that we can all agree that these are not important issues. This is not so. We need to understand that God did create mankind initial as perfect and sinless. That we did have a choice to follow Him and live a sinless life. Adam and Eve forfieted this in the Garden by disobeying God. TE's will further say that Adam and Eve can stand for all mankind, they are correct in saying this, if you look at it from the perspective that each of us, if in Adam and Eve's position, would have done the same thing as they. TE's try to get you awy from the belief that this actual did happen, literally.

Jesus Christ came because Adam failed to keep God's commandment, thus bringing in sin, which brings both physical and spiritual death to the all mankind. Jesus Christ was the second Adam, made as Adam was, perfect and sinless. We must also uphold the teaching that Jesus was conceived (incarnate) by the Holy Spirit, because if we allow it to not be so, then we are inferring that Jesus was sinful. For Jesus to be sinless, He must have been conceived by the Holy Spirit and not a mere man.

Jesus Christ was not fallen, as we are. To suggest that He could, is blasphemy against God because one is claiming God can be sinful.

The reason for Jesus Christ, is Adam's failure to keep God's commandment. We have inherited Adam's sinful nature, due to the fall. By receiving Jesus Christ, we put away the old Adam, and receive the new Adam, the life giving Spirit. We know it is just of God, that we inherit Adam's sinful nature, because if God put any of us in that position, we too would have sinned.

Do not be fooled by their deceptive teachings, that we do not need to believe certain parts of the Bible to be literally true. God is complete Truth, and He is a loving God, knowing that we would ask the question, how did we get here. Ignorantly, people keep asking, even when God has already told us.

When you see this, you know Satan is at work. His tactics are no different than they were in the Garden, 'did God really say...' Even many TE's have boldly said, this is what is at the heart of this discussion, 'did God really say....' How can so many be fooled by such a blantant attempt to deceive people?

There is a saying that goes something like this: 'Evil prevails when good men do nothing.' All we have to do as a Church, as Christ's body, to let Satan grab ahold of more people, is to sit idly by and say nothing.

God didn't give us His Word - the Bible - so that we can choose to believe parts in a way that works with the worlds teachings. Every piece is absolute truth, and speaks of who God is, what God has done, and how God has done it. God answers our essential questions of who, what, when, where, and how.

If there is absolute faith in Jesus Christ, then there will be absolute faith that God's Word is true in all aspects, that it is much more than just a myth.

He who has an ear, let him hear and the Spirit will minister to him/her.

 

[BrotherSteve]

Good Post!

It is sad to see how many Christians believe in evolution. It seems that "Christians" have started to take the bible and interpret it to fit worldly views rather than Godly truths. For many years science was based on observation and now if our observations don't fit science they must be wrong.

What concerns me the most is that salvation doesn't make sense with evolution. We need salvation because we are sinners and if we evolved then were did sin come from and to what life forms does it apply? Can an animal that has not yet evolved into a human sin, even if it is just one small evolutionary step before a human? Do animals have spirits that evolve with them, with only the human spirit being capable of sin? Where do human spirits come from, did God just decide that we had evolved enough and then decide that he would now give us a spirit? Did the creatures that were not quite human (but almost human) go to hevean or hell?

So many of our church leaders are compromising on this issue--I don't believe that God will continue to bless our churches if we continue to compromise with His truths.

 

[mark kennedy]

I happen to agree with most of the OP on the subject of a literal Adam and Eve, this is essential to Christian doctrine and there is a reason why this is unavoidable. Take a good look at the Genesis account of creation and repeatedly the phrase 'And God said' is used at the start of one of God's creative works. It has to be understood that God as the designer and creator of all of life is an essential foundation to Christian theology. Genesis is direct special revelation on the first days of creation that could not be attributed to any credible source other then God Himself. We don't really know the exact way the first six days of creation were communicated to Moses (visions, direct communication from the Tabranacle or private communications on Sinai). What we do know is that when an Old Testament prophet like Moses says 'And God said' he is talking about a direct revelation. Theistic evolution flatly denies this and attributes this poetic prose to a number of sources other then God Himself. I have never once heard the Gospel from a theistic evolutionist so I have no idea if their theology is consistant with my own evangelical version.

Moses uses a very important word in describing God's creation, he uses 'Bara' which is never attributed to anyone other then God Himself. From Vines Expository Dictionary:

Bara- ‘To create, make.’ This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bara ( Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs: asah- ‘to make’ (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 12) and yasar ‘to form (Isa.45:7)​

I have promised to work on an expostion of Genesis 1 for the purpose of opening up a discussion on how Christian theology relates to natural history. What follows are a number of truncated quotes that are from the King James 1769 version and if you are familiar with the Old King James you will notice that I have taken some liberties with the text. These are paraphrased somewhat and should not be confused with direct quotes:

The First Day:

God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light.​

The Second Day:

God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.​

The Third Day:

God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear,” and it was so...God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth,” and it was so.​

The Fourth Day:

God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth” and it was so.​

The Fifth Day:

God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

The Sixth Day:

God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind,” and it was so...

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that crawls upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. To every beast of the earth and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that crawls upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat,” and it was so.​

I just want to add one more thing I believe is extremely important. The word used in the creation passages is Eloihim and not the covenant name for God YHVH or JHVH. The covenant name for God was invoked in the Old Testament by believers that 'called upon the name of the LORD'. When Moses asked at the burning bush who he should say sent him to the children of Israel God responded 'I AM THAT I AM'. The Jews translate it 'The Eternal One' and it is very different from the general name for God.

My point is just this, it is God's general revelation to all mankind that he created the heavens and the earth and only God can reveal this to the natural man:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Romans 1:19-23, The King James Version, 1769.)​

When we talk about Theistic Evolution it should be realized that many, if not most of them, have accepted God's natural revelation. It is with redemptive history, not natural history where the theology becomes important. I am much more concerned how theistic evolutionists understand Romans 1 then how they understand Genesis 1. Still, both passages are foundational and cannot be compromised and that is, in my opinion, the heart of the issue.

 

[keyarch]

Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. KJV

I agree with SBG, BrotherSteve and mark kennedy on this issue. A literal creation account and the global flood etc. are foundational to my faith and without that I have no basis to believe much of anything else in the Bible. In fact those issues are a large part of what brought me to my faith. It would be like saying that Jesus Christ was never resurrected.

I take it very seriously and have full confidence that if one takes the time to study the original scripture on controversial passages and not just take a translation as the total reference, that they will come to a better understanding and see how there are no conflicts and that it can be taken literally where intended and as it relates to science.

For example, the ‘starlight and time’ and the 'age of the earth' are issues that cause conflicts with the YEC model. But myself and others have found that the solution is so simple yet missed, partly because of the English translations.

As Brother Kennedy has outlined, on the first DAY of creation, God said “Let there be light”. That was the first act of the creation week and the only thing done that 24 hour day. If Gen. 1:1 was a heading and not an account of what was done before the creation week, then where did the ‘space’ of the universe come from, where did the globe covered with the waters (plural) come from and when, where did the stars come from and when (not Gen. 1:16 please) etc.

I have studied this issue for years, and not found (nor has ICR, AiG or anyone else shown me) one legitimate scriptural conflict with the following model based on the ‘literal’ translation of scripture:

The Universe with all its stars and galaxies and the raw form of the earth (a globe with the foundations of current materials covered with liquid water and a thick cloud layer) were ‘created’ at some point in the past (could be billions of years) before the described acts of the six literal day creation week about 6,180 years ago.

The first day started with light from God (not the sun) which would be like high noon, and the first “day” was evening to morning until noon again. This means that at least by this point (if not sooner) the earth would have been rotating.

Now enter the regular YEC model.

This alternate model removes many of the barriers for accepting the Bible as literal by people who also believe the scientific claims of astronomy, some dating methods relating to inorganic materials and other observations that relate to other than organic origins.

 

[2thePoint]

For example, the ‘starlight and time’ and the 'age of the earth' are issues that cause conflicts with the YEC model. But myself and others have found that the solution is so simple yet missed, partly because of the English translations.

As Brother Kennedy has outlined, on the first DAY of creation, God said “Let there be light”. That was the first act of the creation week and the only thing done that 24 hour day. If Gen. 1:1 was a heading and not an account of what was done before the creation week, then where did the ‘space’ of the universe come from, where did the globe covered with the waters (plural) come from and when, where did the stars come from and when (not Gen. 1:16 please) etc.

I have studied this issue for years, and not found (nor has ICR, AiG or anyone else shown me) one legitimate scriptural conflict with the following model based on the ‘literal’ translation of scripture:

This alternate model removes many of the barriers for accepting the Bible as literal by people who also believe the scientific claims of astronomy, some dating methods relating to inorganic materials and other observations that relate to other than organic origins.

Looking at Genesis 1:1 it's impossible to say from the context whether this was contained in the first day or not. We simply cannot say for sure either way. But I believe it's entirely plausible that it was a part of the first day, as explained by Dr. Russell Humphreys in Starlight and Time. It's an excellent theory that I think Humphreys has successfully defended. So at least there's no reason to say 1:1 could not be contained in the first day.

This also negates the objection to verse 16, which is clearly contained in the fourth day. Otherwise we would be undermining the entire sequence because we'd be saying "well, this particular phrase refers back to an earlier point in time, but that particular phrase is current to this creation day". In other words, there are problems that arise from saying verse 16 is not contained in the fourth day. If verse 16 is not contained in the fourth day, then we could pretty much make up any sequence or time scale we want.

Still, it's a view I've never heard before. Thanks.

 

[keyarch]

Looking at Genesis 1:1 it's impossible to say from the context whether this was contained in the first day or not. We simply cannot say for sure either way. But I believe it's entirely plausible that it was a part of the first day, as explained by

Dr.RussellHumphreys in Starlight and Time. It's an excellent theory that I think Humphreys has successfully defended. So at least there's no reason to say 1:1 could not be contained in the first day.

We know that the earth was in existence with water covering it before there was light made to shine on it. Light was the first “And God said,” and the start of the first day (“and God divided the light from the darkness”). I’ve read Humphreys book, and it is really a stretch. I disagree with how he has interpreted some scripture that forms a basis for his theory.

This also negates the objection to verse 16, which is clearly contained in the fourth day. Otherwise we would be undermining the entire sequence because we'd be saying "well, this particular phrase refers back to an earlier point in time, but that particular phrase is current to this creation day". In other words, there are problems that arise from saying verse 16 is not contained in the fourth day. If verse 16 is not contained in the fourth day, then we could pretty much make up any sequence or time scale we want.

If you look at the scripture and not an interpretation, it is clear that the stars were there to rule the night with the moon. It does NOT say that God “made” or “created” the stars on the fourth day.

Here’s a ‘YBC’ interpretation of the sequence of events: www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

A clarification of the ‘YBC’ model and how it varies slightly from a ‘YEC’ model is at:
www.genesistruth.org/documents/Young Biological Creation.pdf

One other thing about some of the models that you’ll see out there, is that they don’t have the definitions of words like “heaven” or “made” or “earth” down and use them in a consistent way. If one realizes that “stretching of the heavens” is in reference to the lower heaven (sky) and that is has no relationship to the stars, it can affect their model.
God Bless <><

 

[2thePoint]

I’ve read Humphreys book, and it is really a stretch. I disagree with how he has interpreted some scripture that forms a basis for his theory.

I've seen rebuttals to it and Humphreys' responses, so I'm inclined to think it's not a stretch at all.

If you look at the scripture and not an interpretation, it is clear that the stars were there to rule the night with the moon. It does NOT say that God “made” or “created” the stars on the fourth day.

Come on, everybody uses some kind of "interpretation".

Looking at the verses I see the repeated words "God said, 'Let there be'". It goes from day 1 to day 6. By your reasoning then, God created nothing at all the whole week.

Thanks for the links, I'll try and check those out soon.

One other thing about some of the models that you’ll see out there, is that they don’t have the definitions of words like “heaven” or “made” or “earth” down and use them in a consistent way. If one realizes that “stretching of the heavens” is in reference to the lower heaven (sky) and that is has no relationship to the stars, it can affect their model.

Lots of things can affect any given model, as Humphreys pointed out concerning the general theory of relativity. Models aside, though, a plain reading of Genesis 1 gives me the clear impression that God created it all in 6 days.

 

[siliconghost]

Please, this forum is vulgar trash.

Please start better arguments and stop these long paragraphs!

Be short and too the point!

 

[keyarch]

Come on, everybody uses some kind of "interpretation".

My point is, that if there's a passage that's being interpreted in various ways, its up to us to dig deeper and find out what "scripture" actually says. In the following passage from Genesis 1:16, it is clear that God was addressing the TWO lights (greater and lesser), and the stars were with the lesser ruling the night. There is no wording that says the stars were "made" or "created" here.

 

[keyarch]

Please, this forum is vulgar trash.

Please start better arguments and stop these long paragraphs!

Be short and too the point!

I'm sure we have all benefited from your constructive criticism. Thank you and I look forward to reading your future contributions.

 

[2thePoint]

My point is, that if there's a passage that's being interpreted in various ways, its up to us to dig deeper and find out what "scripture" actually says. In the following passage from Genesis 1:16, it is clear that God was addressing the TWO lights (greater and lesser), and the stars were with the lesser ruling the night. There is no wording that says the stars were "made" or "created" here.

That's the whole problem, deciding what scripture actually says. Most disagreements are not over the content but its meaning, hence interpretation. And looking at the nice Hebrew breakdown you posted, it says "God made". Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[SBG]

My point is, that if there's a passage that's being interpreted in various ways, its up to us to dig deeper and find out what "scripture" actually says. In the following passage from Genesis 1:16, it is clear that God was addressing the TWO lights (greater and lesser), and the stars were with the lesser ruling the night. There is no wording that says the stars were "made" or "created" here.

Hey, you wrote the Hebrew backwords.

It is all out of order too.

I am assuming you are using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, as it uses this type of order...?

Where did you copy that from anyways?

 

[keyarch]

You wierdo, you wrote the Hebrew backwords.

It is all out of order too.

I am assuming you are using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, as it uses this type of order...?

Where did you copy that from anyways?

Yes, the BHS. But instead of right to left I used left to right. Using PC Study Bible, with the translation directly below. If it seems out of order, that's because it's just word for word and not translated as a sentence. So a right to left order would be:
roaM*h^ Áta# <yl!d)G=h^ tr)a)M=h^ yn}v= Áta# <yh!ýa$ cu^Y~w~
tl#v#m=m#l= /f)Q*h^ roaM*h^ Áta#w+ <oYh^ tl#v#m=m#l= ld)G*h^
.<yb!k*oKh^ ta@w+ hl*y+L^h^
So, if you want to read it right to left, it would be:

 

[SBG]

I figured you were using the BHS version. I have the Hebrew Old Testament and the ordering is a bit different, but same words and message.

I will have to check out the PC Study Bible. Thanks!!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

That's the whole problem, deciding what scripture actually says. Most disagreements are not over the content but its meaning, hence interpretation. And looking at the nice Hebrew breakdown you posted, it says "God made". Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[keyarch]

That's the whole problem, deciding what scripture actually says. Most disagreements are not over the content but its meaning, hence interpretation. And looking at the nice Hebrew breakdown you posted, it says "God made". Seems pretty clear to me.

I agree, "God made". So when it says "And God made two lights" I take it you interpret that to mean all the lights and not just two? I happen to take God's Word more literally. If He said he made two, I interpret that as two. Again, the stars are as a backdrop to the lesser light (moon) ruling the night. There is no "He made the stars also" in this passage of scripture.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I agree, "God made". So when it says "And God made two lights" I take it you interpret that to mean all the lights and not just two? I happen to take God's Word more literally. If He said he made two, I interpret that as two. Again, the stars are as a backdrop to the lesser light (moon) ruling the night. There is no "He made the stars also" in this passage of scripture.

If you read all the verses involved in that day God made lights and he made two great lights.

1:14 lights. Cf. v. 16. For 3 days there had been light (v. 4) in the day as though there were a sun, and lesser light at night as though there were the moon and stars. God could have left it that way, but did not. He created the “lights, sun, moon, and stars,” not for light, but to serve as markers for signs, seasons, days, and years. signs. Certainly to include: 1) weather (Matt. 16:2,3); 2) testimony to God (Pss. 8,19; Rom. 1:14–20; 3) divine judgment (Joel 2:30,31; Matt. 24:29); and 4) navigation (Matt. 2:1,2). seasons. It is the earth’s movement in relation to the sun and moon that determines the seasons and the calendar. MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) (Ge 1:14). Nashville: Word Pub.

This is the history of the fourth day's work, the creating of the sun, moon, and stars, which are here accounted for, not as they are in themselves and in their own nature, to satisfy the curious, but as they are in relation to this earth, to which they serve as lights; and this is enough to furnish us with matter for praise and thanksgiving.

And God said, Let there be (k) lights in the firmament of the heaven to (l) divide the day from the night; and let them be for (m) signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

(k) By the lights be means the sun, the moon, and the stars.

(l) Which is the artificial day, from the sun rising, to the going down.

(m) Of things belonging to natural and political orders and seasons.

 

[2thePoint]

Project 86,

As someone else has said, you took the words right out of my hands.