Creationism and Theology

[Jamsie]

Once again, Gen 2 is a re-cap of day 6. I thought you knew that. It's just saying what God had done. Gen 2 is a re-cap of day 6

Yet Gen. 2 is in opposition to your claims here and in a previous thread? Why can't you simply answer the questions posed to you? Obviously if it was a simple recap there would be little problem, so I've asked you simple questions based on Genesis 2 - Here they are again:

*So what you are saying is that since God had to make vegetation twice then obviously Genesis 2:1 is not true, for the earth was not completed?
*What does the "had" in Genesis 2:8 suggest?
*Is to plant the same as to create or make?
*What does it mean that God put or placed the man in the Garden?

*Again, God took the man and put/placed him in the Garden, so where was Adam formed? *Adam was required and necessary to work the garden and care for it...how long do you think that took?
*How long to name all of the animals and birds?
*Do you believe that the name given to each animal/bird by Adam was meaningful?

Do you believe that we have no knowledge of geology, biology, and physics that is not contained in the Bible? What does the Bible say?

This was your response to Hedrick -
"It's also funny how the Theo-Evo camp filters the Bible through text books which contain improbable interpretations of geology and biology." ​

So I have no problem with the knowledge gained from the sciences, from your comment you are the one who chooses to filter. Also, one should note that there is a distinction between knowledge and the metaphysical assertions that one chooses to apply. ​

The point of this or any such discussion is exactly what the Bible says. Though you attempt to disparage other people's interpretation of Gen.1 and 2 I have based my thoughts solely on scripture...the fact that the questions I've posed can not be adequately answered implies much. ​

 

[-57]

Yet Gen. 2 is in opposition to your claims here and in a previous thread? Why can't you simply answer the questions posed to you? Obviously if it was a simple recap there would be little problem, so I've asked you simple questions based on Genesis 2 - Here they are again:

*So what you are saying is that since God had to make vegetation twice then obviously
Genesis 2:1 is not true, for the earth was not "completed"?
*What does the "had" in Genesis 2:8 suggest?
*Is to plant the same as to create or make?
*What does it mean that God put or placed the man in the Garden?​

You seem to be making this verse difficult as you try to force fit evolutionism into the scripture. You don't have to.
God made vegetation on day 3.
On day 6 God made the Garden of Eden...God planted the garden much like you or I would plant a garden....then placed Adam in to it. I'm really trying to understand your difficulty..but am failing as your view makes no sense.

*Again, God took the man and put/placed him in the Garden, so where was Adam formed? *Adam was required and necessary to work the garden and care for it...how long do you think that took?

*How long to name all of the animals and birds?
*Do you believe that the name given to each animal/bird by Adam was meaningful?

Considering the day six explanation tells us God placed Adam in the garden...Adam was made outside of the garden.

How long did it take to name the kinds? Who knows. The names could have been meaningful.

This was your response to Hedrick

-

"It's also funny how the Theo-Evo camp filters the Bible through text books which contain improbable interpretations of geology and biology."

​

So I have no problem with the knowledge gained from the sciences, from your comment you are the one who chooses to filter. Also, one should note that there is a distinction between knowledge and the metaphysical assertions that one chooses to apply.​

I have no problem with science. Science presents a world wide flood. Biomaterial found in dinosaur bones shows that they are younger than the textbook scientist would have us believe....the examples go on and on.​

The point of this or any such discussion is exactly what the Bible says.

Though you attempt to disparage other people's interpretation of Gen.1 and 2 I have based my thoughts solely on scripture...the fact that the questions I've posed can not be adequately answered implies much.

​

I kinda wonder why you are arguing for something the Theo-Evo camp doesn't believe happened.

 

[Jamsie]

You seem to be making this verse difficult as you try to force fit evolutionism into the scripture. You don't have to.

God made vegetation on day 3.

I was initially responding to your previous statement that God made vegetation twice which you now admit was false, fine. I am not "fitting" anything into the Bible ... you are the one who has added with a need for a second creation of vegetation, God have hands, knees, and oxygen.

Here is what I wrote:
“And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent . (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.
*How is not so that by denying God's decrees as efficacious one questions God's omnipotence?

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.
*Would it not suggest that God's command was insufficient if he had to DO something rather than SAY something?

Clearly the command was to preexisting matter, God does NOT decree "Let there be vegetation" or Let there be living creatures", does he? So please show me what exactly is being "fit" into scripture?

On day 6 God made the Garden of Eden...God planted the garden much like you or I would plant a garden....then placed Adam in to it. I'm really trying to understand your difficulty..but am failing as your view makes no sense.

So then from the previous thread where you suggested that the plants grew essentially in a day that was also false? This is noted in Gen. 2 as well, as man was required to work the ground. The point was simply to show that your previous statements on vegetation were not Biblical, as you now admit.

So if we can agree that the scripture is meaningful then the events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow being necessary for man to be put into to work. So Adam was working the garden. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. The care and maintenance of the garden and the naming of animals and birds would require more then 24 hours. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. When Adam woke up, he used the Hebrew word pa‛ămâh, which means "at long last". If Adam has only needed to wait a few hours, it is unlikely he would have used this Hebrew word. The context suggests that Adam had to wait a considerable time before Eve was created. So, it is very unlikely all of this could have taken place in a 24 hour period of time, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.

I kinda wonder why you are arguing for something the Theo-Evo camp doesn't believe happened.

As in the previous thread I showed you plainly where I addressed your questions, you just didn't like the answers...yet they are very much in harmony with scripture. On the other hand it appears the questions posed to you go unanswered as noted here and there. What exactly am I arguing that I don't believe happened?

I truly believe that much of the problem stems from a quite superficial reading of Genesis, there is absolutely nothing that I've written that is not directly from the Bible. If you think so please point out where?
​

 

[-57]

I was initially responding to your previous statement that God made vegetation twice which you now admit was false, fine. I am not "fitting" anything into the Bible ... you are the one who has added with a need for a second creation of vegetation, God have hands, knees, and oxygen.​

Once on day 3 then again when God planted the garden. That would be twice.

Here is what I wrote:

“And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent . (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.
*How is not so that by denying God's decrees as efficacious one questions God's omnipotence?

Adam was not created out of nothing on day six as described in Gen 2.
The stuff the dirt was mae from appears to have been created ex-nihlo.

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.

*Would it not suggest that God's command was insufficient if he had to DO something rather than SAY something?

Some of what God made was "fiat" while like man it was fashioned by what the fiat command was.

Clearly the command was to preexisting matter, God does NOT decree "Let there be vegetation" or Let there be living creatures", does he? So please show me what exactly is being "fit" into scripture?

Everytime God says "let there be" it's a command.

So then from the previous thread where you suggested that the plants grew essentially in a day that was also false? This is noted in Gen. 2 as well, as man was required to work the ground. The point was simply to show that your previous statements on vegetation were not Biblical, as you now admit.

I gave you an example of a plant growing in less than a day. I in vision day 3 as being similar.
You keep getting the Garden of Eden mixed up with what was outside of the Garden.

So if we can agree that the scripture is meaningful then

the events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow being necessary for man to be put into to work. So Adam was working the garden. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. The care and maintenance of the garden and the naming of animals and birds would require more then 24 hours. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. When Adam woke up, he used the Hebrew word pa‛ămâh, which means "at long last". If Adam has only needed to wait a few hours, it is unlikely he would have used this Hebrew word. The context suggests that Adam had to wait a considerable time before Eve was created. So, it is very unlikely all of this could have taken place in a 24 hour period of time, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.

After seeing none of the animals could be a helpmate, at last he now has Eve. No long wait required.

As in the previous thread I showed you plainly where I addressed your questions, you just didn't like the answers...yet they are very much in harmony with scripture. On the other hand it appears the questions posed to you go unanswered as noted here and there. What exactly am I arguing that I don't believe happened?

The fall is where the Theo-Evo argument lands. If God used evolution to create man, then there is no fall.

I truly believe that much of the problem stems from a quite superficial reading of Genesis, there is absolutely nothing that I've written that is not directly from the Bible. If you think so please point out where?

​

I've been pointing it out.

 

[Jamsie]

Once on day 3 then again when God planted the garden. That would be twice.​

No, as you said "God planted the garden much like you or I would plant a garden" for when I "plant" existing seeds are used I do not create vegetation! The Hebrew word for "plant" is not the word for made or create.

Some of what God made was "fiat" while like man it was fashioned by what the fiat command was.

So some of commands/fiats worked and some did not? The fiat was to the land for both animals and man … but evidently the fiat was not sufficient. (The only distinction I see with Adam is "breath of life" - not physical breath but of a spiritual nature)

Everytime God says "let there be" it's a command.

Thank you and this represents the exact problem I am trying to point out to you. The Bible does NOT say "Let there be vegetation..." or "Let there be living creatures..." what it does say is "LET THE LAND PRODUCE..." (or bring forth.) That is the problem people do not read Genesis 1 they simply have read it as a novel without actually considering what is written.

​

I gave you an example of a plant growing in less than a day. I in vision day 3 as being similar.

Again, one needs to actually read Genesis with sufficient delicacy because Genesis no where states that plants sprung up immediately. In Genesis 2:5 it states that no plant or shrub had yet sprung up... so your example is totally disputed by scripture. We discussed the difference between create and intervene as with the sun, nile, and donkey... again, the Bible refutes such.

​

​

​

You keep getting the Garden of Eden mixed up with what was outside of the Garden.

After seeing none of the animals could be a helpmate, at last he now has Eve. No long wait required.

​

​

So in just a few hours he would say "at last"...not very patient was he? Again, you may dismiss the question in terms of time but" no long wait" hardly answers all that took place on day six... if it is to be meaningful.

​

The fall is where the Theo-Evo argument lands. If God used evolution to create man, then there is no fall.

I've been pointing it out.

Yes, and this has been answered which for some inexplicable reason you won't accept? God ordained processes however defined or termed has absolutely no effect in any manner, shape, or form on God's sovereignty, thus on Adam/Eve the fall. Why do you find that so difficult to understand...I think because it is simply the repeated use of a weak argument that has been refuted by many.​

 

[-57]

Thank you and this represents the exact problem I am trying to point out to you. The Bible does NOT say "Let there be vegetation..." or "Let there be living creatures..." what it does say is "LET THE LAND PRODUCE..." (or bring forth.) That is the problem people do not read Genesis 1 they simply have read it as a novel without actually considering what is written.

It doesn't have to say let there be plants. It says “Let the earth sprout vegetation". Some translations say "bring forth".... The word means, to sprout, shoot, grow green...NOT evolve. You haven't considered what is actually written. You simply inserted evolution into the passage where it was never intended to be.

Again, one needs to actually read Genesis with sufficient delicacy because Genesis no where states that plants sprung up immediately. In Genesis 2:5 it states that no plant or shrub had yet sprung up... so your example is totally disputed by scripture. We discussed the difference between create and intervene as with the sun, nile, and donkey... again, the Bible refutes such.

It does so say "plants sprung up immediately".

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.

That sound pretty immediate to me.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up....

There was a time when there was no bush of the field or no small plants...then day 3 happened. this verse is transitional, an introduction, a lead up, to the creation of man.

I'm trying to see your point but it simply makes no sense. Wht not leave the bible alone and stop trying to insert evolutionary OE concepts between the lines?

 

[Jamsie]

.

 

[Jamsie]

.

 

[Jamsie]

It doesn't have to say let there be plants. It says “Let the earth sprout vegetation". Some translations say "bring forth".... The word means, to sprout, shoot, grow green...NOT evolve. You haven't considered what is actually written. You simply inserted evolution into the passage where it was never intended to be.
It does so say "plants sprung up immediately".
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
That sound pretty immediate to me.

Yes, the command was to the land/earth and there is no implication of immediacy. As noted to you it is the Command that "was so", no reference to immediacy. If the decree is to "let the land" how is it that you can't comprehend mediate? As you stated you "envision" immediacy because of the passage concerning Jonah... You envision is the very same as saying "it isn't in scripture but this is my perspective", yet you attempt to deny other people's perspectives.

Most translations use "bring forth" or "produce" or "sprout" which still affirm mediate creation. The same implication … a decree directed to the land. A plain reading of 1:11 or 1:20 or 1:26 is clearly directed at the land/earth. And 1:26 is why the Bible notes throughout that both animals and man came from the dust... Ge. 2:7 and 3:19, Psalm 103, Ecc. 3:20, 1 Cor. 15:47 it sounds immediate to you because you want it to sound that way, just as you want all that occurred on the sixth day to be hours long. Clearly, many of the Genesis 1 fiats were mediate by any reasoned reading of the text...I need not "envision" anything on that point.

I'm trying to see your point but it simply makes no sense. Wht not leave the bible alone and stop trying to insert evolutionary OE concepts between the lines?

It makes sense if you seriously study the passages discussed. What makes little sense is a reference to Jonah as if to explain creation immediacy or God breathed means God gave Adam mouth to mouth, or when it says God formed that means he has hands and got down his knees to form Adam, or that because he was "walking" in the garden he has legs, or because he called out to Adam that he didn't know where he was... that makes no sense at all. That you state that God could have taken human form to create the animals and Adam has no basis in Genesis...so you are adding to scripture what obviously isn't there.

The reality is that YEC created a false situation to pit a narrow view because of OEC/evolution though all evidence is against that and the Bible is not definitive. Genesis says nothing about either time or exactly how God created ... as explained before myriad Christians involved in the sciences are OEC and accept some form of evolution as God's means to multiply...not Ad populum just fact.

Fact is most people from my generation were inculcated into YEC. The reason some of us looked further into scripture was the many false claims promulgated by the various creationist sites. This prompted a more serious investigation, and so as many others I left the YEC camp. These were creationist arguments at one point...though some still used them after refutation: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com

 

[Jamsie]

"Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine

 

[Jamsie]

-57 wrote: "I'm trying to see your point but it simply makes no sense. Wht not leave the bible alone and stop trying to insert evolutionary OE concepts between the lines?"

Of course it makes no sense when one reads the creation account with YEC blinders covering both eyes and thoughtful consideration.

Here is the point, which I will spell out once again. The account of creation has each day with "And God said, …" it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. So that it isn't twisted it is that God "made" by command not by action but by word. That is the plain reading of scripture, and confirmed by other verses in the Bible which were noted.

You reject that God's decrees are all sufficient by asserting that God must have take on human form to make/form so that he has hands, mouth, breath, knees, etc. to accomplish creation. Clearly the use of any anthropomorphic terms is figurative or do we question God is spirit. Also, this is not even remotely suggested in scripture.

As I affirm the integrity of scripture of God's all sufficient fiats then the use of "It was so" is confirming the command, no implication of time or immediacy. Further if God's commands are all sufficient then logic would dictate that what follows would be explanatory for if not then one should question God's omnipotence as his decrees lack efficacy.

You stated that not all of creation was "ex nihilo" but then logic again would introduce mediate creation. Thus when the command is "Let the land/water produce, bring forth, or sprout..." the land is an agent of God's command, thus mediate.

Further, to suggest that Jonah 4:6 need apply to the immediacy of creation is at best fatuous. For then one would need to assert that animals talked at the beginning like Balaam's donkey, it was common for rivers to part, the sun stood still often, etc. for by applying singular miraculous interventions to the creation account simply fails.

What we do know is that "In the beginning God created...", We know that "And God said,..." was the sole operative agent of creation whether mediate or ex nihilo. What we do not know is the exact details of everything concerning creation simply because it was not deemed necessary. Perhaps that is because the Bible is a book of theology not a book of science.

And to reject science not because of its discoveries and findings but because of those who make unwarranted metaphysical leaps is to again dismiss scripture. We discard natural revelation though it is set forth in scripture such as in Romans 1:20, and other passages. Again, any deviation from the rigid and suspect YEC is to jettison our God given reason and the ability to know him through his creation.

 

[-57]

-57 wrote: "I'm trying to see your point but it simply makes no sense. Wht not leave the bible alone and stop trying to insert evolutionary OE concepts between the lines?"

Of course it makes no sense when one reads the creation account with YEC blinders covering both eyes and thoughtful consideration.

Here is the point, which I will spell out once again. The account of creation has each day with "And God said, …" it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. So that it isn't twisted it is that God "made" by command not by action but by word. That is the plain reading of scripture, and confirmed by other verses in the Bible which were noted.

You reject that God's decrees are all sufficient by asserting that God must have take on human form to make/form so that he has hands, mouth, breath, knees, etc. to accomplish creation. Clearly the use of any anthropomorphic terms is figurative or do we question God is spirit. Also, this is not even remotely suggested in scripture.

As I affirm the integrity of scripture of God's all sufficient fiats then the use of "It was so" is confirming the command, no implication of time or immediacy. Further if God's commands are all sufficient then logic would dictate that what follows would be explanatory for if not then one should question God's omnipotence as his decrees lack efficacy.

You stated that not all of creation was "ex nihilo" but then logic again would introduce mediate creation. Thus when the command is "Let the land/water produce, bring forth, or sprout..." the land is an agent of God's command, thus mediate.

Further, to suggest that Jonah 4:6 need apply to the immediacy of creation is at best fatuous. For then one would need to assert that animals talked at the beginning like Balaam's donkey, it was common for rivers to part, the sun stood still often, etc. for by applying singular miraculous interventions to the creation account simply fails.

What we do know is that "In the beginning God created...", We know that "And God said,..." was the sole operative agent of creation whether mediate or ex nihilo. What we do not know is the exact details of everything concerning creation simply because it was not deemed necessary. Perhaps that is because the Bible is a book of theology not a book of science.

And to reject science not because of its discoveries and findings but because of those who make unwarranted metaphysical leaps is to again dismiss scripture. We discard natural revelation though it is set forth in scripture such as in Romans 1:20, and other passages. Again, any deviation from the rigid and suspect YEC is to jettison our God given reason and the ability to know him through his creation.

I've already addressed these points. You're summation of what you've said I said is incorrect.


COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

JOHN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Whether something was created ex-nihlo or whether Jesus used the earth to cause vegetation to sprout...it was created/made by Him.

 

[Johan_1988]

So, according to you all of the various discoveries by the sciences are all because they did not have God in mind? Yet every day of your life you are immersed in the findings of science, and that is an undeniable fact. In other words your ideology is that if not stated plainly in the Bible then it has no validity?

Chesterton said “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” I would suggest one could say the same about scripture, it has been read without due consideration and cerebration, often.

The attack on science is also an attack on scripture. One must disregard not only what is written but deny the many passages that speak to our ability to understand God's creation - Natural Revelation. This was noted previously but ignored and yet it is a valid point...one can demonize science and but not dismiss "appearance of age", God having physical qualities like humans, claim any belief other than their own eviscerates particular Christian principles, and not honestly admitting that the Bible is a book of Theology not a book of science. The conflict arises not from a seeking of truth as far as we can know or a considered reading of scriptures but from an inflexible stultifying idea that it must be my way, my narrow interpretation. The fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth does not negate the truth of the Bible.

I said things should be viewed in the context of God's word. If any prevailing scientific theory denies the existence of God or at least used as an excuse by unbelievers to deny him you should reject it. Not that I deny that many scientific discoveries have relevance sure in all fields medical, physical, astronomical to name a few. It's when they leave out God and not give him glory and deny him by saying:" It happened by chance and this happened by a natural processes only. Not acknowledging God's sovereign rule of created things and his complete mastery of time, space and matter. If you do not do that you will end up in a situation where your views are similar to pantheism which states that God is the universe and only works behind the scenes and is not personal and has no relation to man, that's why Albert Einstein accepted it to some extent since it does not clash with the theory of evolution. It distances God from his creation and makes him impersonal. God did many miracles like the plagues in Egypt, the parting of the red sea and more importantly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When God does some thing He commands it and it happens , as the scripture clearly states:

Ps 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
Ps 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
Ps 148:3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Don't put too much hope in radio carbon dating since it depends on the speed of light as a constant and it has never been the same, check my link: It's A Young World After All

 

[Johan_1988]

-57 wrote: "I'm trying to see your point but it simply makes no sense. Wht not leave the bible alone and stop trying to insert evolutionary OE concepts between the lines?"

Of course it makes no sense when one reads the creation account with YEC blinders covering both eyes and thoughtful consideration.

Here is the point, which I will spell out once again. The account of creation has each day with "And God said, …" it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. So that it isn't twisted it is that God "made" by command not by action but by word. That is the plain reading of scripture, and confirmed by other verses in the Bible which were noted.

You reject that God's decrees are all sufficient by asserting that God must have take on human form to make/form so that he has hands, mouth, breath, knees, etc. to accomplish creation. Clearly the use of any anthropomorphic terms is figurative or do we question God is spirit. Also, this is not even remotely suggested in scripture.

As I affirm the integrity of scripture of God's all sufficient fiats then the use of "It was so" is confirming the command, no implication of time or immediacy. Further if God's commands are all sufficient then logic would dictate that what follows would be explanatory for if not then one should question God's omnipotence as his decrees lack efficacy.

You stated that not all of creation was "ex nihilo" but then logic again would introduce mediate creation. Thus when the command is "Let the land/water produce, bring forth, or sprout..." the land is an agent of God's command, thus mediate.

Further, to suggest that Jonah 4:6 need apply to the immediacy of creation is at best fatuous. For then one would need to assert that animals talked at the beginning like Balaam's donkey, it was common for rivers to part, the sun stood still often, etc. for by applying singular miraculous interventions to the creation account simply fails.

What we do know is that "In the beginning God created...", We know that "And God said,..." was the sole operative agent of creation whether mediate or ex nihilo. What we do not know is the exact details of everything concerning creation simply because it was not deemed necessary. Perhaps that is because the Bible is a book of theology not a book of science.

And to reject science not because of its discoveries and findings but because of those who make unwarranted metaphysical leaps is to again dismiss scripture. We discard natural revelation though it is set forth in scripture such as in Romans 1:20, and other passages. Again, any deviation from the rigid and suspect YEC is to jettison our God given reason and the ability to know him through his creation.

Hi, you are forgetting certian scriptures that say that God created all things through Jesus Christ:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Jesus has a body with hands and feet to do things and scripture plainly states that all things were created by him.

 

[Jamsie]

I've already addressed these points. You're summation of what you've said I said is incorrect.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

JOHN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Whether something was created ex-nihlo or whether Jesus used the earth to cause vegetation to sprout...it was created/made by Him.

Essentially what you've written with verses is not anything any of us don't believe. As I said the preeminent verse in Gen. 1 is "In the Beginning God..." so there was never disagreement there. And NO, you have not addressed my points...which is fine. Resorting to the non-biblical fabrications that you have is not addressing the points. That you will not address fiats, that is fine...that you will not address - "And God said, Let the land sprout living creatures..."...or as you stated previous "Let there be..." which you were incorrect concerning land/water because God never said that.

If anything you have convinced me more of an OEC/God ordained process because your defense of YEC fails on so many levels...so thank you for that.

 

[Johan_1988]

Jamsie I speak this with all honesty and respect. You should stop trying to put God in your head ,but put him in your heart.

 

[Jamsie]

Hi, you are forgetting certian scriptures that say that God created all things through Jesus Christ:
Jesus has a body with hands and feet to do things and scripture plainly states that all things were created by him.

No, I am not forgetting...can you show me specifically in Genesis 1 where a Christophany occurs? Can you point me to some scholars or theologians that hold a position claiming that Jesus was at creation forming animals and man from the dust, or separating the land and water, or planting a garden, etc.? At the very least could you show me verses that remotely imply God used the physical to create? It would be appreciated, unless there exists a comprehension problem, if either you or -57 would actually address what I've written...sidestepping is not confronting.

 

[Jamsie]

Jamsie I speak this with all honesty and respect. You should stop trying to put God in your head ,but put him in your heart.

No, you speak with a certain hubris not honesty and respect... respect would require one to give due cerebration to the interpretation of scripture that is in contrast to your own. Further, you do not know anything about me or my salvation and walk with the Lord. Because you are unable to address the issues raised on this peripheral subject does not warrant questioning someone's heart. I might suggest, as I have that one take a much more in depth look at Genesis with an attempt to read with fresh eyes....

 

[Johan_1988]

No, I am not forgetting...can you show me specifically in Genesis 1 where a Christophany occurs? Can you point me to some scholars or theologians that hold a position claiming that Jesus was at creation forming animals and man from the dust, or separating the land and water, or planting a garden, etc.? At the very least could you show me verses that remotely imply God used the physical to create? It would be appreciated, unless there exists a comprehension problem, if either you or -57 would actually address what I've written...sidestepping is not confronting.

I fail to understand why you contend that God does not have a metaphysical nature. It that is one of the arguments evolutionists have that a spiritual force cannot effect physical matter. God lives in a universe that transcends the physical properties of the matter we see, He his the highest form of matter therefore He created the matter in our universe and all creation and can manipulate it at will

 

[Johan_1988]

No, you speak with a certain hubris not honesty and respect... respect would require one to give due cerebration to the interpretation of scripture that is in contrast to your own. Further, you do not know anything about me or my salvation and walk with the Lord. Because you are unable to address the issues raised on this peripheral subject does not warrant questioning someone's heart. I might suggest, as I have that one take a much more in depth look at Genesis with an attempt to read with fresh eyes....

I'm not saying you are not saved. I cannot judge that since I do not know you as you have said. I merely meant that you should work out your salvation in your heart not your head. And the presumption that what I have said is pride, think again, I speak of what I know and what God has shown in my heart. I've been around I have seen the depths evil, I was in the occult before and see now how I was blinded simply by denying the simple truth of scripture .Now that I am born again have known and tasted the great deep wonders of God as I went through the tests, trials and even sorrows of life. Not that I'm boasting I have nothing to be proud about and have sinned greatly in my past life and should be dead for my sins, by the judgement of God and man. I speak as one whom has received mercy and spoke to you so out of love. I'm not scared to tell the the truth and when I talk about respect I talk to you as a person whom God loves and whom I love.

I love you man, as a brother and speak these things with fear and trembling and urge you to Give his word your 100% trust. I know the price of deception. It nearly cost my life,never mind my soul.