But not mutually exclusive with creation by God. Have you never wondered why this is only a problem for Evangelical Protestants?
Maybe they are right not to go beyond a confession of faith, rather then trying to reason with people who will never accept the things of God. I'm seriously doubting that evidential apologetics has any significance beyond an intellectual exercise, believers don't need it and unbelievers are never going to accept the things of God until they experience the miracle of creation in their hearts:
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.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven, (The Nicene Creed)
The stars go out the sun goes out, in the Tribulation. What you thought the stars came back on? Have you some support for that?
The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night. (Rev. 8:12)
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. (Rev. 16:8)
True, although it just says sun is not needed, nothing I recall about the stars. I assume they are gone till we see the new heavens at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ?
I think we are on the same page about what happens, I just don't think you get the progression.
It was i that time I was taling about that we need no sun. The point was that if we need no sun then, we could have needed no sun for a few days here in creation week also.
It makes no sense that God creates the heavens and the earth and the heavens are empty until day four of creation. It just makes more sense that the heavens were hidden from view because of the clouds so thick oceans and the atmosphere had to be separated. There is a progressive revelation of the heavens, literally.
I wasn't looking for order. I was looking at how it notes that all the host of heaven were now finished. It does not say...
'the ancient old galaxies and stars were already there and created long ago, and now God considered the universe finished with the addition of the lights He created on creation week'
Progression is the guiding principle of the narrative in Genesis one, the language, the grammar, the way creation is created, then formed, then set.
That sort of interpretation is not supported through the rest of the bible, and there is NO reason biblically to believe that. So what is the reason you would lean that way? The preachers on the radio I heard who inserted billions of years between verse one and two did so out of a desire to comply with science.
The Bible empathizes that God created life, especially man. The text will spend no time on geology, cosmology or astronomy except to say in absolute terms God created them. God creating life is the essence of the promise of the gospel, it's blessed hope, inextricably linked to the incarnation, resurrection and rapture. There is no interpretive challenge here, all it says is that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. That dismisses every single argument from Cosmology, Geology, radiometric dating while upholding the clear testimony of Scripture while pointing our what the text puts special emphasis on, the Creation of life:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)
Remember the Gospel? It doesn't spend any time, nor do the Scripture talking about the earth revolving around the sun or vise versa. It also mentions that God through Christ created the heavens and the earth with the progression leading up to the creation of life. A creation promised to believers who receive the promise by faith. That's why I never bothered with geology, I chose instead to explore genetics and the historicity of Scripture. I do not have any reason to go beyond the Scriptures here, the language of the text couldn't be more clear. The purpose of all Christian Apologetics is to bring out the promise of the gospel and defend the testimony of faith.
Could that be after the flood? It is not clear is it when it is? After all the land masses likely were joined together in Genesis. But even if that was creation week, I don't see how it matters.
This is original creation, it dovetails perfectly with the Genesis account of creation. God is asking, 'where were you?', but the first parent of humanity had not been created at that point, the earth had to be made suitable for life. Just don't go beyond what is written and you won't have to chase down irrelevant tangents, in circles, endlessly.
Yes that can fit. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it meaning that the universe we see was already here.
This isn't a probability argument, it's an exposition. I'm not importing anything into the text, only examining how it's constructed in literal terms. The perspective is from the surface of the earth and the progression of the seas and land being separated, firmament above and below being separated and the heavenly lights being formed and set in a further development of creation fits the narrative perfectly. God creating the sun, moon and stars on day four is as unnecessary as it is illogical. There is no reason the earth would be floating in an empty universe for four days.
Light...yes. That light having to have come from stars or the already created universe...no.
The Shekinah glory of God may well have been the light in the opening line of creation week, that doesn't mean there was no sun, moon and stars. It means the earth was covered with water and clouds.
That could be for a number or reasons, we cannot use that to read in some ancient secret extra creation.
Ancient yes but I wouldn't say secret, I would call it what it is, the revelation of God through the prophets, apostles and ultimately Christ.
For some it has significance beyond what it should.
The use of progressively more general terms is how you follow the progression of the narrative. There is not one word for God's work in creation, there are actually three.
Well, again, one could find relevance to the ages when creation week and man was made etc. I see no reason to run from the apparent biblical age of the earth myself. The heaven of heavens, where God lives is outside our universe apparently. So why try to make the universe so old?
I'm not trying to make it anything, it may well be very old, it may not, it's irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.
Well, let's face it, only God can create universe also. I woud be careful about reading to much into the words used for creating.
Of course only God can create the universe, the word 'bara' is in the Qal Perfect, the most absolute language available. The meaning of the words indicates they were carefully selected for specific meaning. I'm not reading anything into it, I'm consulting lexicons and various other resources to learn what the meaning is in order to understand the text. I am careful not to go beyond what is written, to not add to or take away from the text, this is directly from what is written not imported into it.
If Darwin was alive he might be a mod!
If Darwin were alive he would probably be a botanist or a entomologist (insect studies). He raised orchids, pigeons and had a beetle collection with over 6000 specimens. He might have done a documentary on the Galapagos, he could actually read Mendel which was the basis for modern genetics. All he did was propose a 'tree of life' that proposed universal common descent which btw, never went beyond the level of genus.
He ascribed a date....ha. Opinion.
The real problem here is the authorship of Moses was dismissed by a Pantheist originally. How the Pentateuch was actually developed has been buried in secular scholarship and naturalistic assumption. It completely ignores the fact that Ezra found the Law in the ruins of the old Temple.
Twits.
Unbelievers.
Fools.
Unbelievers yes but we mustn't judge them too harshly since apart from Christ we are all in the same condition:
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:14)
Maybe the Protestants are overrated?
Maybe Calvinists have withdrawn into their ivory towers and forgotten that while we cater to secular philosophy the world perishes for lack of knowledge.
They think only in naturalistic terms. Fishbowl thinkers. Small minds. False prophets.
Hehe. They will get the boots put to that diabolical quackery soon.
Right. That tells me something about the person who would pose such a dumb question mostly.
Right. So, for the lurkers, in plain English, this means God created, and life did not get here by some natural cause.
We are talking about history with a two source epistemology (theories of knowledge). One is naturalistic and as long as it stays focused on what can be directly demonstrated or directly observed there is no problem. There is another source for knowledge, from the only one who was there at creation and was involved throughout human history. God's revelation of redemptive history cannot be taken figuratively, the revelation of Scripture is progressive and confirmed with signs, miracles and wonders to confirm the Word as it was going forth. They more dramatic ones were during the time of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha and finally during the time of Christ and the Apostles. The most important miracle isn't frogs in Pharaohs bed chambers, or the parting of Jordon or even Jesus walking on water. Those are all important, those are not the miracles being promised to us personally in the gospel:
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13)
God created life, this is the inescapable message and special emphasis of the Genesis account of creation. It has profound theological significance since it is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and being born again of the Spirit of God. I don't care about Cosmology, I know who created the heavens and the earth. I don't care about Geology, the age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. The promise of the gospel is eternal life, that's not the remote, primordial, ancient past or the far, unlit future on an uncertain horizon.
Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matt. 13:52)
We need not go beyond what is written to get to the heart of the emphasis in Genesis and the Gospel. To those who believe in his name God gave the right to become children of God:
For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Rom. 8:19-22)
If you would have life you will find it in no other then the one who brought it from the earth at Creation, it is found in no other then Christ, the Incarnate and eternal Word of God. That's not my interpretation or opinion, that's Gospel. I don't blame an unbeliever for being trapped in naturalistic frame of reference since they can only see the light of creation through the power of the Holy Spirit. Believers should know better, from the Scriptures, what God wants us to take from these sacred historical narratives. Protestants have systematically abandoned the Scriptures by deferring to worldly secular sources and authority. Shame on us, we should have known the natural mind would think this a lot of foolishness. Still the foolishness of God is stronger then the wisdom of the world:
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1:20-25)
Always it's in the foundational teachings, John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1, Genesis 1 and here in Corinthians. But somehow we still miss it, Genesis leads us to the Gospel and the light of creation is found in no other then Christ. Have we forgotten that or are we content to spar with naturalistic reasoning that cannot receive the things of God.
Grace and peace,
Mark
