Creation in six days, yet slow change and great limitation for everything now on earth...

[JAL]

And in the really long run, the earth brought forth cattle via a chain of other organisms, the first of them via abiogenesis.

Very unconvincing. At Genesis 1:20-23 (the preceding 4 verses), the "sea" is in contrast to the earth/land. The sea teems with living creatures, and that is NOT the verse that you adduced for abiogenesis. Instead you adduce verse 24, which refers to the earth/land. In other words, Moses is a very careless writer, from your perspective. He SHOULD have said, "Let the sea bring forth living creatures."

It's clear that your exegesis suffers from several weaknesses, doubts, and question marks. And yet, amazingly enough, you declare it in an apodictic tone.

 

[JAL]

Never heard a farmer make a statement like that. Land doesn't bring forth cattle.

You do realize you just contradicted the verse, right? The verse says, "Let the land bring forth living creatures." Maybe there's something wrong with your understanding?

In terms of subtle nuances and idioms, the NIV translation is germane here, "Let the land produce living creatures". When a farmer holds up his glass of wine and toasts, "Let this farm produce a great harvest and many fat cattle," it's a reference to neither abiogenesis nor evolution.

 

[coffee4u]

To better firmly hold a creationism standpoint, it is important to see there are two creation stories: one of heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 and one somewhere else on the first day of the first creation story, before life and other things were created in the heavens and Earth, in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. Immediately after, the book of Genesis resumes with the conclusion of the first creation story, where Adam has been fruitful and multiplied and become many on earth.

So, on the first day of creation, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, where the Earth was without form and void. And here comes in the second creation story, which happened outside of the space and reality but within the timeframe of day one of creation. Humans were created by God (NOT stated here in the image and likeness of the (G)gods). The (G)gods were not limited like our sin-corrupted mortal bodies are now. They could do anything except usurp <edit>God's will</edit> with knowing good and evil but not sinning, and we could do anything so long as we did not yet know the knowledge of good and evil. There were generations of Adam within this second creation story, where everything was created and grew and evolved before it was brought forth within the rest of the timeframe of the first creation story in six days. By the time humans appeared on earth in the sixth day of creation, humans had already fallen in the first day of creation in the second creation story! Yet, God called everything that was created by day six, "Very Good" !!! And, where Genesis 5 starts, God still made humans in the image of (G)gods and the likeness of not (G)gods but of HIMSELF, DESPITE (or perhaps BECAUSE) THE FALL OF HUMANKIND AND CREATION HAVING ALREADY HAPPENED!!!!

Before sin entered into creation and messed things up (quite severely, especially over humanity's history), it is entirely plausible for each day to have brought forth perfect life very quickly, with genetic and form evolution happening within single lifespans within a day or days - the way things were intended by God - INSTEAD OF THIS REALLY-MESSED-UP FAR-FROM-PERFECT WORLD OF PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. That is why there is pain and suffering and death and the problem of evil, and God Almighty has even SACRIFICED HIMSELF as Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity to fix how really messed up sin makes things. The very fabric and nature of reality and our experience of life on earth has become severely distorted because of sin (that is why the punishment of eternal (everlasting?) destruction seems so severe - because the consequences of sin are EVEN WORSE - the Bible even says it is a choice by spirits wandering and having no place to go but the lake of fire!). Instead of progressing genetically and individually and as a civilization co-habiting with other life on earth like a rocket, there has been barely any change compared to that for thousands of years with tons of problems.

The times back then before the widespread wickedness of humans and the flood would have been very different from today - all those (G)gods still running around with all those powers, even if fallen - the Earth would be a *very* different place with things very different for the people, plants, and creatures living back then. Even after the flood the Bible reports Egyptians using magic (of the gods) forgotten to today to do "scientifically-impossible" things. We can't assume that the extremely physically-limited and confined nature of the way things are in life today was the way things were necessarily before, such that the way things are happening and being and progressing today were the way things were happening back then.

It seems by the time Jesus Christ was walking the Earth in His ministry, the way humans experienced reality <edit> may have been </edit> largely similar to the way we experience it today, <edit> except with less brainwashing from "Science (Limitation by beliefs of the self, beliefs of the nature of reality, and beliefs of who is the or even whether there exists the divine/God Almighty), Technology (Limitation by dependence upon other things to accomplish and in the process learn what one could otherwise do oneself), Engineering (Limitation by habits of doing, obscuring perception / mindlessness, and limiting creative thinking), and Math (Limitation by learning made difficult?, especially with respect to application of knowledge to one's life)" limiting our perspective and awareness of what we truly are as humans, what we are actually capable of as humans (especially with God's Spirit guiding us to be Christ-like), and the gravity of the situation we are in as fallen beings created in the image and likeness of God. Why are things so different today especially compared to times closer to the beginning of creation (of heaven and earth)?</edit> The knowledge is hidden, corrupted, and forgotten from the masses, knowledge that was innate in the purity of sinless creation; <edit>we are educated to be nothing but relatively unchanging, limited, frail to insult and force bio-chemical machines with ourselves and reality ruled purely by those electro-chemical reactions. With this paradigm I have formulated from the plainest and most presupposition-free, most-faithful-in-the-inerrency-of-the-scriptures reading I could yet do of the first chapters of Genesis, it seems to make more sense in to have creationism, perhaps a young earth, rather than millions and billions of years of slow, boring incremental evolutionary change .</edit>

Stay safe my brothers in Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity. Strive for the narrow way that leads to life. Peace and love .

As a firm creationist now for over 30 years I disagree with nearly everything you said except the last sentence. "Strive for the narrow way that leads to life." On that we can agree.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

Very unconvincing. At Genesis 1:20-23 (the preceding 4 verses), the "sea" is in contrast to the earth/land. The sea teems with living creatures, and that is NOT the verse that you adduced for abiogenesis. Instead you adduce verse 24, which refers to the earth/land. In other words, Moses is a very careless writer, from your perspective. He SHOULD have said, "Let the sea bring forth living creatures."

It's clear that your exegesis suffers from several weaknesses, doubts, and question marks. And yet, amazingly enough, you declare it in an apodictic tone.

Ge:1:19-23:
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And 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.
And God created great whales,
and every living creature that moveth,
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.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

God and the Holy Spirit were the 'seeds' used to create Adam and Eve as a married couple. All other flesh seems to use these 4 beings as 'the seeds':
Re:4:6-8:
And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal:
and in the midst of the throne,
and round about the throne,
were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
And the first beast was like a lion,
and the second beast like a calf,
and the third beast had a face as a man,
and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him;
and they were full of eyes within:
and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy,
holy,
holy,
Lord God Almighty,
which was,
and is,
and is to come.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

Let's be honest about the main reason you dislike my view. You're an SDA

on the other thread my issue was the idea of God suffering for six days of creation week which was an "insert" that you prefer but is not in the text and most Christians "SDA or not" also do not go for such an insert.

I prefer the Protestant model of "sola scriptura testing" as I have stated many times before and as we see in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11 - as I said repeatedly on that other thread.

you are
determined to convince everyone that God rested for a 24-hour period named "The Sabbath"

This thread title says that same thing about those first 7 days.

Ex 20:11 says the same thing about the first 7 days.

Pretty much all the top level scholars in Hebrew and OT studies say that same thing about the Gen 1-2 text and "what it says" -- so it is nonsense to argue that only SDAs would know it.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

Although we are saved by the cross, nonetheless God will, on judgment day, evaluate/appraise our individual contributions

Indeed. What lines up with the Word of God will be approved and what is opposed to it - will not stand.

1 Cor 3 makes the point in triplicate.

- obviously on the basis of my merit-formula.

YOUR God is a hypocrite who evaluates US on our hard work/suffering while gobbling up the highest praise for His own LACK of work/suffering.

I do hear atheists argue that idea from time to time. But it is hard to take it seriously since God died on the cross to save all of mankind. Something neither you nor I have done no matter how often we share our peanut butter sandwich with a neighbor.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

Suppose I say to my son, "Follow my example of working hard for a living", but I've never worked/suffered a day in my life. That makes me a total liar and a hypocrite, right? Enter Exodus 20:11 where God commands Israel to aspire to HIS example of working six days.

What kind of a liar and hypocrite does NO REAL WORK ...

Take a look at the cross - and then try to say that with a straight face.

 

[JAL]

Take a look at the cross - and then try to say that with a straight face.

Um..er...the cross was a thousand years later. Suppose Adam and Eve had not sinned, hence no cross. So God did nothing in terms of effort/labor to merit praise? Tell it to His face.

 

[JAL]

on the other thread my issue was the idea of God suffering for six days of creation week which was an "insert" that you prefer but is not in the text and most Christians "SDA or not" also do not go for such an insert.

You believe that God lied about doing real labor, and needing real rest. Clearly that's the "insert" here.

Newsflash: Indoctrination doesn't make your interpretation better than mine.

I prefer the Protestant model of "sola scriptura testing" as I have stated many times before and as we see in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11 - as I said repeatedly on that other thread.

You mean, of course, the kind of "sola scriptura testing" that ONLY serves to support your indoctrination. The only way to do that is to turn a blind eye to contradictions such as, "An immutable God became man." Enjoy your Sola Scriptura. I'll stick to sound exegesis.

This thread title says that same thing about those first 7 days.

Ex 20:11 says the same thing about the first 7 days.

Pretty much all the top level scholars in Hebrew and OT studies say that same thing about the Gen 1-2 text and "what it says" -- so it is nonsense to argue that only SDAs would know it.

Doctrine is merely a popularity contest? So the Reformers had no right to question 1500 years of scholars?

 

[BobRyan]

You believe that God lied about doing real labor

God said nothing about torment or suffering -- He simply said He did work as the Creator.

What I disbelieve is the torment , suffering bits you add to it.

, and needing real rest.

Again you "insert" the term "NEED" as if making that up would be sufficient to insert that.

Clearly that's the "insert" here.

Yes inserting your word "NEED" and your ideas of suffering and torment as on the cross etc.

Newsflash: Indoctrination doesn't make your interpretation better than mine.

Newsflash - I am not the one introducing all these inserts - you are and you would have to sell your inserts to a significant part of Christianity - not "just me" to make that fly as "two equally accepted options".

You mean, of course, the kind of "sola scriptura testing" that ONLY serves to support your indoctrination.

I like the objective method of sola scriptura testing and exegesis. Which removes it entirely from "popularity contest" venues that you suggest..

That means I don't go for "someone made something up in 1200 A.D. so I should be able to add my own inserts" sorts of arguments.

 

[BobRyan]

God did nothing in terms of effort/labor to merit praise?

God's Work in creation does not 'torment Him' or "cause Him to suffer". Rather like many an artist even today - He enjoys creating. The fact that He has "infinite capability" does not diminish His work - it magnifies it.

If you and a friend were in a truck that lost a tire and had no jack to lift the truck. Both of you get out and try to lift that one corner of the Truck to replace the tire - and cannot do it. It weighs over 500 pounds and the two of you can't lift it. Then some guy walks up - asks if you need help - has the three of you stand back and he lifts that end of the truck while you fix the tire. Everyone is very glad for the help. But in your world they would not be happy at all if they found out this guy could lift over 900 pounds. You would be going around telling your friend not to be glad for the help after all 500 lbs is not so much if the person can also lift 900?

And you want that sort of logic taken seriously -- right? Like "yeah - we all buy that"??

Your response is to an imagined scenario where you think I am the only one that finds your suggestions to be extreme.

 

[JAL]

If you and a friend were in a truck that lost a tire and had no jack to lift the truck. Both of you get out and try to lift that one corner of the Truck to replace the tire - and cannot do it. It weighs over 500 pounds and the two of you can't lift it. Then some guy walks up - asks if you need help - has the three of you stand back and he lifts that end of the truck while you fix the tire. Everyone is very glad for the help. But in your world they would not be happy at all if they found out this guy could lift over 900 pounds. You would be going around telling your friend not to be glad for the help after all 500 lbs is not so much if the person can also lift 900?

And you want that sort of logic taken seriously -- right? Like "yeah - we all buy that"??

Thanks for proving my points.

- Anyone who walks up to help a stranger suffers the agony of putting his own life at risk. This includes the agony of possibly leaving his children fatherless.
- He also suffers the opportunity cost of time spendable elsewhere for his own profit or having fun.
- If his max lift is 1,000 LB, even a 500 LB weight is enough for labor/suffering, and even to severely injure him if he failed to warm up his muscles.

And you want that sort of logic taken seriously -- right? Like "yeah - we all buy that"??

You want your kind of logic taken seriously? Really?

You would be going around telling your friend not to be glad for the help after all 500 lbs is not so much if the person can also lift 900?

Who said anything about not being glad? I'm GLAD for anything that benefits me. For example suppose someone tried to harm me but accidentally helped me. I'm glad for the benefit - but has he merited praise? Oh that's right, one merits praise only according to my merit formula. I almost forgot.

Is that all you've got - merely strawmen?

 

[JAL]

Take a look at the cross - and then try to say that with a straight face.

And what is it you most admire/appreciate about the cross? Any chance it was the labor/suffering involved?

 

[JAL]

Newsflash - I am not the one introducing all these inserts - you are and you would have to sell your inserts to a significant part of Christianity - not "just me" to make that fly as "two equally accepted options".

Sadly that's how indoctrination works. You don't even realize you're the one adding the inserts to the text.

 

[JAL]

That means I don't go for "someone made something up in 1200 A.D. so I should be able to add my own inserts" sorts of arguments.

Unbelievable. You're still insinuating that, around 1200 AD, Thomas Acquinas completely misunderstood the hypostatic union officially accepted by the middle of the fifth century.

 

[JAL]

God said nothing about torment or suffering -- He simply said He did work as the Creator.

God commands us to labor/suffer. Only a jerk would dishonestly set forth His effortless lazy sloth as the paradigm of "work" and meritorious of the highest praise. You can continue to paint Him as a jerk if you want to. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

Take a look at the cross - and then try to say that with a straight face.

Actually the cross has no merit, on your assumptions. According to you, God is both:
....(1) immutable in love and holiness.
....(2) infinite in love and holiness.
Such a God CANNOT minimize His love, He MUST maximize it, he has no free will to do anything else. Where is the merit in that?

It also leads to a contradiction. Since real love intervenes to reduce suffering, infinite love spells infinite atonement wherefore hell could not logically exist even for the devil and his followers.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yahweh meaning Lord for the Hebrews

Do you have a source for that?

In Hebrew it's YHWH without the vowel markers. Changing the vowels can change the meaning but it does mean something as all Hebrew names so. Yahweh is not a word and I suppose you can suggest it has lost meaning but it is more probable YHWH has more practical meaning since naming convention of the Hebrews always did. Moses first heard his name in Ex 3:14 when God said he is "I AM" or "ehyeh" which is the first person singular of "haya" (the "AM" part).

In v16 "God tells Moses the script to say the Israelites saying "Say to the Israelites, YHWH, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation."

Who is "me" in context? It's Moses so this is a script from the perspective of Moses not of God. So from the perspective of Moses he wouldn't say I AM has sent me, as that's a first person pronoun. He would use a third person pronoun for I AM. What is that? It's Yihweh meaning "He is" and is the third person pronoun for Haya.

YHWH is not Yahweh it's Yihweh and it's meaning is not a mystery or something only angels can pronounce, it means "HE IS". Paired with "I AM" however it's not really name, it's a declaration. Isolating God to single name is limiting so this name business is silly and has a pagan mindset.

God simply is and that's the point. He existed long before langages or speech and when we insist a name upon him we reduce him to a beginning or limit which misses the point.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Do you have a source for that?

In Hebrew it's YHWH without the vowel markers. Changing the vowels can change the meaning but it does mean something as all Hebrew names so. Yahweh is not a word and I suppose you can suggest it has lost meaning but it is more probable YHWH has more practical meaning since naming convention of the Hebrews always did. Moses first heard his name in Ex 3:14 when God said he is "I AM" or "ehyeh" which is the first person singular of "haya" (the "AM" part).

In v16 "God tells Moses the script to say the Israelites saying "Say to the Israelites, YHWH, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation."

Who is "me" in context? It's Moses so this is a script from the perspective of Moses not of God. So from the perspective of Moses he wouldn't say I AM has sent me, as that's a first person pronoun. He would use a third person pronoun for I AM. What is that? It's Yihweh meaning "He is" and is the third person pronoun for Haya.

YHWH is not Yahweh it's Yihweh and it's meaning is not a mystery or something only angels can pronounce, it means "HE IS". Paired with "I AM" however it's not really name, it's a declaration. Isolating God to single name is limiting so this name business is silly and has a pagan mindset.

God simply is and that's the point. He existed long before langages or speech and when we insist a name upon him we reduce him to a beginning or limit which misses the point.

The Bible in this country is written in the English language _ ALL the ORIGINAL Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, words are translated INTO ENGLISH - where the translators inserted English vowels.
The Hebrews stopped calling him by his given YHWH name in fear of using his name in vain - and started calling him Adonai / Lord which has the same meaning in both languages as someone who has power / authority / the master.

What Does Adonai Mean?

Although we see Yahweh pop up frequently (both Adonai and Yahweh meaning “The Lord”), Adonai gives us more of a hint about what the Lord’s role is in our lives. Adonai means “master” or “Lord,” showing God has sovereignty over us.

www.christianity.com

What does Yahweh mean? | Cru

Yahweh means “To be” or "I AM WHO I AM." Here’s what it can teach us about God.

www.cru.org

YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name - TheTorah.com

God reveals his name to Moses as "I am," from the Hebrew root ה.ו.י, “being." The name YHWH, however, originates in Midian, and derives from the Arabic term for "love, desire, or passion." | Prof. Israel Knohl

www.thetorah.com

What "Yahweh" Means in the Bible - God's Name Explained

The English language doesn’t have an exact translation of the word “Yahweh,” so in our Old Testament we see it written as “LORD” in all capital letters. Let's dive into the meaning of Yahweh in the Bible and why this is the most important name for God.

www.biblestudytools.com

Yahweh | YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of ‘YHWH,’ the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.

www.britannica.com

No, we do not know God's true name _ he never told us. He was El / Elohim to the Canaanites / Melchizedek.

Melchizedek | Story, Meaning, Priesthood, & Bible Verse

Melchizedek, also spelled Melchisedech, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), a figure of importance in biblical tradition because he was both king and priest, was connected with Jerusalem, and was revered by Abraham, who paid a tithe to him. He appears as a person only in an interpolated...

www.britannica.com

Canaanite religion – Questioning Torah

Posts about Canaanite religion written by Melissa Carpenter

mtorah.com

And there are different ways names are spelled in Scripture - depending on the translator / writer.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Bible in this country is written in the English language _ ALL the ORIGINAL Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, words are translated INTO ENGLISH - where the translators inserted English vowels.
The Hebrews stopped calling him by his given YHWH name in fear of using his name in vain - and started calling him Adonai / Lord which has the same meaning in both languages as someone who has power / authority / the master.

I'm not addressing the English (or Latin, Greek, etc...), perhaps it changed to Adonai/Lord to keep the respect but that's not what YHWH means. It means "He is" and it's not a name, it's a declaration of existence. The very idea God can be reduced to a name is a pagan mindset and perhaps it's why it stopped being used in fear of the name becoming akin to idolatry. Better to call God with a word to address him with honor and respect that we all know is just a word than to call him by something we think the very word evokes power. of course, if true it has had the opposite effect because there are all kinds of ridiculous lore regarding the name. Before the name "YHWH" was uttered God still was, before Hebrew, God was, before Adam God was. and that's the point. God simply is, and he preexists all things, including names.