Creationist Verses

[RightWingGirl]

If Matthew 19:4 means that humans existed from the beginning of the universe, does John 15:27 mean the disciples also existed from the beginning of the universe?

John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
It is obvious that he is talking about his ministry--the diciples had been with him since the beginning of his ministry. This verse is not like Matthew 19:4 it does not say "Ye have been with me from the beginning of creation".

Mark 10:5-6 says "beginning of creation". You've been clear that you believe creation took exactly six days. Is the beginning of creation the first day or the sixth day?

It says "from the beginning of Creation, not "at the begining of creation." Men have been raound since the sixth day of the universe.

The verses about male and female make perfect sense if God is referring to the creation of humans, especially since the context is marriage. As long as there have been humans made in the image of God, they've been male and female. Science doesn't contradict this statement (though of course it can't comment on the image of God).

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
I cannot see anywhere in this verse where it mentions man being made in the image of God. It does say that from the beginning they (mankind) have existed, and have been male and female.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I've got to go, but I should be online tomarrow or this evening.

Thanks, all, for the interesting discussion!

 

[chaoschristian]

chaos...I think it is a legitimate question to ask a TE how they prove the creation was allegoryl/myth of what God actually did.

Absolutely, yes.

That said, how do you propose one set out to prove it?

My premise is that since what Creation reveals is not the same as what scripture reveals, then the truth that scripture conveys must be something other than indicative fact.

I should think that if you are truely a Bible believing TE that you could attempt to explain how the plausibility of evolution is plausible.

My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible.

That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God.

I make this distinction for two reasons:

1. scripture is not necessary for faith or salvation
2. The modern day tendency to put so much 'faith in the Bible' or 'love of the Bible' or 'belief in the Bible' concerns me, and so I do what I can to try and draw away from that.

All that said, the plausibility of evolutionary theory is to be found within the scientific evidence that supports it. Scripture, IMO, is silent on the issue, whereas Creation has a whole bunch to say.

 

[chaoschristian]

Don't try and kid an old kidder. I've hung out with lawyers too long.

I was expecting some sort of logic trap, and you delivered.

Premise B is where you have a fatal flaw, in that regardless of how the Hebrews interpreted Exodus 20:11, God knew that His truth would have been conveyed and understood.

The question is, what is the truth that God wanted to convey?

Did He want to convey that the earth was created in six days? Or did He want to convey that He is one righteous, mighty dude.

To answer that, ask yourself this: what use is the fact that the earth was created in six days to a culture at the technology level of BC era Israelites?

On the other hand, how powerful is the message to a beset upon people that their God is the mightiest God?

*quote from Peppermint Patty from the Peanuts.

Chaos,
Sir, is this right?

A. God is all-knowing
B. Being all-knowing, God would have known that Exodus 20:11 would be interpreted literally by the hebrews--that they would think he meant exactly what he said, having no reason to think otherwise.
C. You belive the earth was not created in six days
D. You think that what is said in Exodus 20:11 is not literally true (as the Hebrews supposed).

True is here defined as literally, historically true.

Therefore, you think that what God wrote in Exodus 20:11 was not true (C.), God knew it was not true(A.) and that the Hebrews would think it was true (B.)

Are any of my points wrong? I know it's a bit strong, a bit black-and-white, but I'm trying to be clear.

 

[Mark2010]

It is physically possible for God to create the universe in six days, six hours, six minutes--what will you. It is not phsically possible to put wrath, which is an emotion, into a bowl. I belive the bowls are symbolic.

WHat do you think the days are symbolic of?

How to you come to the conclusion that this is possible?

I'm no one's science expert, but that just strikes me as a very short period of time to be involved with such a large event.

Also, do you have beliefs/ideas as to what original matter was used or the process involved in such a six-day creation?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
It is obvious that he is talking about his ministry--the diciples had been with him since the beginning of his ministry. This verse is not like Matthew 19:4 it does not say "Ye have been with me from the beginning of creation".

I think you have the references mixed up. Matthew 19:4 does not say "beginning of creation" (that is the Mark passage). It just says "from the beginning", just like John 15:27. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should look to the context to see what beginning is in view. In that John passage it's the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and in the Matthew passage it's the beginning of humanity.

Now, about the Mark passage:

It says "from the beginning of Creation, not "at the begining of creation." Men have been raound since the sixth day of the universe.

I didn't say "at", and I'm not sure why you capitalized "Creation". If creation was a six-day event, and humans were made on the sixth day, then humans existed from the end of creation. At least, that's one way to read it hyper-literally. I don't think that reading is correct, but neither do I think that your reading is correct. I think it's simply saying that people have always been male and female. Humans were not created as a single gender and then given a second gender at some later date.

I cannot see anywhere in this verse where it mentions man being made in the image of God. It does say that from the beginning they (mankind) have existed, and have been male and female.

I thought we'd both agree that humans are created in the image of God. I wasn't suggesting those words were in the verse.

Also, it doesn't say from the beginning mankind existed and was male and female. If it said both those things, your interpretation would be more persuasive. But, it actually makes a single statement, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' " Three options I can see:

1. If "creation" refers to the creation week, then this passage conflicts with Genesis 1, since the sixth day would be the end of this time period.
   
2. If "creation" refers to the universe, then this passage conflicts with reality. Not only that, but in this interpretation the verse doesn't indicate what was made male and female. The implication might be that "made them male and female" would apply to every creature and not just humans. This also conflicts with reality.
   
3. If "creation" refers to humanity, there is no conflict with either Genesis 1 or reality. Humanity is implied to be the focus because the context is talking about human divorce. And so, this context means it is the beginning of human creation it is discussing, and that humans were made "male and female".

 

[Marshall Janzen]

A. God is all-knowing
B. Being all-knowing, God would have known that Exodus 20:11 would be interpreted literally by the hebrews--that they would think he meant exactly what he said, having no reason to think otherwise.
C. You belive the earth was not created in six days
D. You think that what is said in Exodus 20:11 is not literally true (as the Hebrews supposed).

True is here defined as literally, historically true.

It's always good to see how your logic holds up when you apply it to a different situation. So, let's look at the other example I gave:

A. God is all-knowing.
B. Being all-knowing, God would have known that Genesis 30:37-39 would be interpreted literally by the Hebrews -- that they would think he meant exactly what he said, having no reason to think otherwise.
C. You believe this event was a miracle and not caused by the striped branches.
D. You think that what is said in Genesis 30:37-39 is not literally true (as the Hebrews supposed).

Therefore, you think that what God wrote in Genesis 30:37-39 was not historically true (C), God knew it was not true (A), and that the Hebrews would think it was true (B).

Are any of my points wrong?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I make this distinction for two reasons:

1. scripture is not necessary for faith or salvation
2. The modern day tendency to put so much 'faith in the Bible' or 'love of the Bible' or 'belief in the Bible' concerns me, and so I do what I can to try and draw away from that.

There are people that misuse the Bible. Should I not still trust it as God's word? There are people who misuse Jesus. Should I stop trusting in Jesus? There are people who misuse money in the church? Should I stop giving? There are those who witness for the wrong reasons? Should I stop witnessing? There are churches that split. Should I stop going to church?

The problem isn't putting faith in the Bible. In fact, I think the problem is the lack of faith in the Bible as God's word. In fact the problem goes deeper than that. I think the problem is a lack of belief in God in people that call themselves "Christian".

The problem is that the Bible is way too easy to understand and thus they have tried to muddy it up with man's desires so that man has been desensitized to sin and has forgotten how bad sin really is to God. What Adam did brought suffering of man into the world. What Christ did was bring back eternal hope of man back into the world.

I will confess to any TE, that I agree that there isn't an absolute demonstration that the Bible defintion of death covers animal deaths too. God never said that. It has only been implied by those who have to figure out what happened to the animals. But animal death isn't spoken of as a direct consequence of sin. But sin has caused the consequence of death for man. But the scripture doesn't negate the plausibility that animals death was part of it either. So both options are open on animal death.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

So is the assumption that Ex 20:11 by the TEs that contextually this verse can not be taken as literal but all the verses surrounding it can be?

Let me ask it another way as well. Let's say that each day is an age, or period of time. Would it then be considered a contextually literal truth?

What if each day was a literal 24 hour period that spiraled out millions of years within its day. Could that be taken as well? I don't think gravity's effect on time is a widely held belief, but i have heard of this.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

So is the assumption that Ex 20:11 by the TEs that contextually this verse can not be taken as literal but all the verses surrounding it can be?

I only speak for one TE. Based on comparing Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5, I don't believe either Exodus 20:11 or Deuteronomy 5:15 were on the stone tablets. So yes, I do treat that verse differently than the surrounding verses. It adds meaning to a command from God, rather than being a command from God.

Let me ask it another way as well. Let's say that each day is an age, or period of time. Would it then be considered a contextually literal truth?

I don't believe each day is an age or period of time. I think the days are a framework the same way the bowls of Revelation 16 are a framework for describing God's wrath poured out in judgement. To me, taking the days as ages would be similar to claiming the bowls are actually cisterns. It doesn't deal with the reasons for taking the days and bowls figuratively in the first place.

What if each day was a literal 24 hour period that spiraled out millions of years within its day. Could that be taken as well? I don't think gravity's effect on time is a widely held belief, but i have heard of this.

I don't see a need for this kind of explanation anymore than I see a need to show that somehow wrath could literally be placed into bowls.

 

[Mark2010]

Right wing girl,

What do you beleive would have had to happen to bring about creation is just six solar days?

 

[Mark2010]

Right wing girl,

What do you believe would have had to happen to bring about creation is just six solar days?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The literal 24 hour day, as we know it presently, is part of the 'structure' of this age, the age of man if you will. God created an admittedly arbitrary time structure as part of the whole of the re-creation to serve the new life forms. And so far it works great!

Just work backwards in time and you can prove it. Today, in 2006, there are 24 hours in a day. There are also people, birds, animals, fish, trees, plants, green stuff, creepcrawlies, all over the place.

Just exactly as described in GenO:ne What more proof do you need.

oldwiseguy

 

[chaoschristian]

There are people that misuse the Bible. Should I not still trust it as God's word? There are people who misuse Jesus. Should I stop trusting in Jesus? There are people who misuse money in the church? Should I stop giving? There are those who witness for the wrong reasons? Should I stop witnessing? There are churches that split. Should I stop going to church?

I agree with the point you are making, that just because some (and logically even if all) people misuse or abuse some facet of the faith, that alone is not reason enough to abandon all hope and forego the practice thereof.

The problem isn't putting faith in the Bible. In fact, I think the problem is the lack of faith in the Bible as God's word. In fact the problem goes deeper than that. I think the problem is a lack of belief in God in people that call themselves "Christian".

I think we all experience our own crisis of faith each and everyday, as a result of our fallen nature. Not one of us has enough faith or trust in God. Thank God for His grace!

What I'm trying to say is that my experiences have led me to be cautious when using language such as 'faith', 'belief' and 'love' in association with scripture, as I correlate with an almost idolaltrous fixation on the Bible. And I want to tread lightly here, so that I don't either give the impression that I don't view scripture as divinely inspired (I do), or to make too much of the fact that some people are more deeply effected by scripture than I am (I get almost nothing out of individual study of the Bible, I need to study with at least one other person).

The problem is that the Bible is way too easy to understand and thus they have tried to muddy it up with man's desires so that man has been desensitized to sin and has forgotten how bad sin really is to God. What Adam did brought suffering of man into the world. What Christ did was bring back eternal hope of man back into the world.

I think that the message of the Gospel is easy to understand, especially if it is being sought within the context of a loving Christian relationship and/or community. I find the Bible itself incredibly difficult to understand, and I have lots of questions (but no answers) regarding technical aspects of the Bible. But I save those for other forums.

I will confess to any TE, that I agree that there isn't an absolute demonstration that the Bible defintion of death covers animal deaths too. God never said that. It has only been implied by those who have to figure out what happened to the animals. But animal death isn't spoken of as a direct consequence of sin. But sin has caused the consequence of death for man. But the scripture doesn't negate the plausibility that animals death was part of it either. So both options are open on animal death.

That's a well thought out statement with many points worth pondering and prayer.

 

[RightWingGirl]

My faith is reserved for God alone, I do not believe in the Bible.

That said, I do believe that scripture is inspired by God.

I make this distinction for two reasons:

1. scripture is not necessary for faith or salvation
2. The modern day tendency to put so much 'faith in the Bible' or 'love of the Bible' or 'belief in the Bible' concerns me, and so I do what I can to try and draw away from that.

All that said, the plausibility of evolutionary theory is to be found within the scientific evidence that supports it. Scripture, IMO, is silent on the issue, whereas Creation has a whole bunch to say.

What is your opinion on this verse?
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

 

[RightWingGirl]

Premise B is where you have a fatal flaw, in that regardless of how the Hebrews interpreted Exodus 20:11, God knew that His truth would have been conveyed and understood.

The question is, what is the truth that God wanted to convey?

Did He want to convey that the earth was created in six days? Or did He want to convey that He is one righteous, mighty dude.

Two questions if you wouldn't mind.
1. Let us say for a moment that God did create in six solar days. How could he say it in his word so that you would belive it?
2. How would he convey that he is a righteous, mighty dude by telling a direct un-truth? (Truth being factual)

To answer that, ask yourself this: what use is the fact that the earth was created in six days to a culture at the technology level of BC era Israelites?

I would think of the same use as it is to any culture.

On the other hand, how powerful is the message to a beset upon people that their God is the mightiest God?

What does "I am the mightyest, strongest God" have to do with the Sabbeth day? Why would it be included in this commandment? If that was all of his meaning, then why didn't He put it in "THou shalt have no other gods besides Me"?

*quote from Peppermint Patty from the Peanuts.

I've always liked Snoopy best.

 

[chaoschristian]

What is your opinion on this verse?
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

That it is the most poetic and eloquent description of Christ that I have ever read.

 

[RightWingGirl]

How to you come to the conclusion that this is possible?

I'm no one's science expert, but that just strikes me as a very short period of time to be involved with such a large event.

Also, do you have beliefs/ideas as to what original matter was used or the process involved in such a six-day creation?

With God it is possible. As for the process, I do not know, but it seems that God created the basic elements from nothing, on day one and out of them,made life forms in six days. However I haven't studied this in a while and I could be wrong.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I think you have the references mixed up. Matthew 19:4 does not say "beginning of creation" (that is the Mark passage). It just says "from the beginning", just like John 15:27. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should look to the context to see what beginning is in view. In that John passage it's the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and in the Matthew passage it's the beginning of humanity.

Ahem! You're right, I got the two mixed up. I had to read it twice to figure out what I was saying. :o

Now, about the Mark passage:

I didn't say "at", and I'm not sure why you capitalized "Creation". If creation was a six-day event, and humans were made on the sixth day, then humans existed from the end of creation. At least, that's one way to read it hyper-literally. I don't think that reading is correct, but neither do I think that your reading is correct. I think it's simply saying that people have always been male and female. Humans were not created as a single gender and then given a second gender at some later date.

When I look at this verse I see that "creation" could be either a verb or a noun. In other words, it could be talking about the universe or the act of creation. The word is ktisewV, but that dosen't help much... I think you are correct, however, and that it most likely means universe. As to your third option, why would you think "beginning of creation" might mean the creation of humans?

1. passage conflicts with reality. Not only that, but in this interpretation the verse doesn't indicate what was made male and female. The implication might be that "made them male and female" would apply to every creature and not just humans. This also conflicts with reality.

I would really like to discuss the physical evidence for or against a six day creation in another thread, but what I am trying to discuss at the moment is if the Bible allows for Evolution or not. Do you think that this verse could be a Biblical evidence for YEC? If not, why not?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

As to your third option, why would you think "beginning of creation" might mean the creation of humans?

Because the context of the passage is talking about divorce in humans, not divorce of animals or anything else. As I said:

• If "creation" refers to humanity, there is no conflict with either Genesis 1 or reality. Humanity is implied to be the focus because the context is talking about human divorce. And so, this context means it is the beginning of human creation it is discussing, and that humans were made "male and female".

Do you think that this verse could be a Biblical evidence for YEC? If not, why not?

It could be used as evidence for YEC the same way atheists could use it as evidence of error in the Bible. Atheists could interpret it hyperliterally as meaning that humans were made at the beginning of creation, while Genesis 1 says humans were made at the end of creation -- on the last day -- and as such claim the Bible is in error. Similarly, the verse can only be made to support YEC by stretching the meaning and being more literalistic than is necessary. I think that's a bad approach, whether done by atheists or YECs.