Genesis 1 Creation Week

[Metal Minister]

This is the link to the spoken version of my earlier sermon. I apologize for the quality and my errors, but I'm only given one chance to get it right.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/metal-minister/2012/07/17/genesis-1

Please let me know what you think!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Philis]

Think about what, every commentator has said as much and that's just the ones who don't think it's too obvious to mention.

Do you have some examples for me to follow up with?

 

[Metal Minister]

Do you have some examples for me to follow up with?

I posted one in an earlier post

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

This is the link to the spoken version of my earlier sermon. I apologize for the quality and my errors, but I'm only given one chance to get it right.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/metal-minister/2012/07/17/genesis-1

Please let me know what you think!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Actually, now that I've listened to myself, I'm thinking it was better being left in written form only...

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you have some examples for me to follow up with?

We are done Philis, I have stopped taking you serious and I'm certainly not going to do your research for you. Go read a couple of commentaries on Genesis 1, they are readily available with minimal effort and stay away from the TE sites, they are as bad as Liberal Theologians when it comes to rationalizing the text away to nothing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Something you may find fascinating Mark, but the translation of Genesis as the book of beginnings is incorrect.

The Jews designated Genesis according to its initial word, bereshith which is almost always incorrectly translated in English by the phrase "In the beginning." In Talmudic times the work was known as the "Book of the Creation of the World," while the English title "Genesis" was actually derived from the LXX rendering of Genesis 2:4a, "This is the book of the geneseos of heaven and earth," and from the subsequent headings (Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; and 37:2

Introduction to Genesis 1 and 2

And yes, thee is no ancient Hebrew word for universe, so they used heaven and earth. It's a fairly well known thing...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

I know what your getting at and I have learned to appreciate that about Genesis, each new topic is really just an expansion of the previous one and the creation is the core of the subject matter. Life from death, this theme has came back to me so many times in this book. Isaac was from a dead womb, Joseph was pretty much left for dead and thought to be dead only to be second only to the most powerful ruler of the time, Pharaoh. Hagar and Ishmael were pretty much at death door when the 'God who really sees' visited them.

There are so many patterns that span out like ripples in a pond, almost reminiscent of the resurrection but more like a cascading pattern. I don't know how anyone can look at the book of Genesis and mistake it for a natural theology or dismiss it as figurative. I have never gotten anything like that from the text. I can well understand how people could have a problem with the content, I mean it makes some incredible claims and the next one is always bigger then the first one.

I struggled with that for years with the New Testament, I get used to the predictive prophecy being fulfilled, that wasn't too bad. Then the miracles, some of them kind of bizarre like writing in the dirt or cursing a fig tree but not that bad. Then over the protests of his followers Jesus is going to the cross and given the prophecy of the Old Testament the cross just seems like the opposite of what they were saying, unless you look rather close. Then, as if all of that was not hard enough to take Jesus is ushered into the High Priests court and in matter of fact terms tells this man his is God incarnate. That one threw me for a loop, I had always kind of thought the deity of Christ was an exaggeration but it's really not. Add to that Jesus talking about things in the afterlife like the rich man and Lazarus and I really had a rough couple of years as a new Christian.

I got through all of that, there were and are answers to all of that on a very personal level. I finally came to terms with the cross with Psalm 22, actually had such a vivid image of it at one time that I wondered if it wasn't a vision, still do.

Then I come to these debates and wonder what on earth these folks are doing having a problem with creation. After coming to terms with the Incarnation the creation was pretty much light work. I struggled early and often with the whole justification/sanctification thing, dispensational vs covenant theology, the rapture was kind of sketchy for me and I still haven't been convinced there is enough information in the prophecies to make a final determination.

Then I get into these highly semantical discussions of the meaning of 'firmament' and the age of a 'day', seriously, we are going to debate how long a day is? Do these people have any idea how gut wrenching doctrinal issues like confession, repentance and the Lordship of Christ can be? Do they care? I reflect on how inconceivable it was for me that God could become human, that the cross could actually bring righteousness, that someone as absolutely determined as Paul was to destroy the faith could be one of the hardest working missionaries for the faith.

I could go on and I don't mean to burden you with my personal Gethsemane and struggle to come to terms with doctrinal issues. But the creation, in comparison almost seems trivial given the breath taking enormity of the claims of the Christian faith and the sage of redemptive history that can only be described as supernatural events on steroids.

Are we really going to argue over whether or not creation was a divine fiat, a miraculous array of power across the cosmos and culminating in God creating life as it exists on earth. Are we really going to have a problem with Adam being made from dust when God became man and died for us?

Are we dealing with intellectual questions here or simple, natural, unbelief. Sometimes I have to wonder if it's the facts in question or a questioning of the most inescapable fact in God's natural revelation. God is the Creator and to attribute to nature what is rightfully attributed to God can only be considered idolatry.

I'm just venting, think nothing of it but it still confounds me that creation is even a question. In every discussion of God as Creator I have seen in the Scriptures it is invariably a given.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Mark, Amen, and again I say Amen! The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) God created exactly as it says in Genesis, and this creation is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice. Also, what are you having trouble with in terms of the rapture? Perhaps I can help. And feel free to "vent" anytime. That's what brothers and sisters in Christ are here for!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, Amen, and again I say Amen! The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) God created exactly as it says in Genesis, and this creation is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice.

That's where I'm at with it, if your having trouble with the creation of life, I start to wonder what you think of the incarnation because that one is so much harder to fathom.

Also, what are you having trouble with in terms of the rapture?

I'm kind of unchurched, never spent a lot of time with any particular fellowship but I think I must have tried them all. I never thought of it as the 'rapture', I simply thought of it as the resurrection. The pretribulation rapture never made a lot of sense to me, if you look at the seals closely what seems to be indicated is persecution. I don't really feel the Scriptures give a definitive answer to this and as far as a posttribulation rapture, is the church really going to be here for the vials of wrath? I kind of favor a midtribulation rapture even though for me when isn't really an issue, it's simply that when Christ appears we will be with him. That's all that was ever important to me.

It just seems kind of trivial to me, I mean to whole question of when exactly. I do like the sense of the coming of Christ being imminent, to be watchful and ready, to live as one who must give an account, I think that's important. I just don't think getting wrapped around the axle over when exactly is that important and I'm a little puzzled that a pre and post tribulation point of view both require their own peculiar theology (dispensation vs covenant). I don't think it is especially helpful since I happen to like them both. I never considered them to be mutually exclusive, just two different approaches to very similar issues. I mean which is more important Trigonometry or calculus, which one is more true? Well, they are both true enough, the real question is what kind of a problem are you trying to solve, that tells you what kind of math you need.

Perhaps I can help. And feel free to "vent" anytime. That's what brothers and sisters in Christ are here for!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Well there is one thing, the rapture isn't a big issue for me, it just seems kind of trivial after dealing with something like the Incarnation and the cross. I have this view of the Song of Solomon that I think must be unique, perhaps even idiotic but the more I look at it the clearer it is for me.

I simply think that it's a story about two people in Solomon's court. I suspect the groom is one of his sons and the bride was from the Sharon valley not far from Jerusalem so these two were raised together always knowing they would marry. Throughout the story they took care of their duties, he built the house, she took care of the garden and the opening scene in the banquette hall was the beginning of their marriage that spanned about ten days if memory serves.

The thing is, that last night where he tries the door in their new home and he leaves, she follows him to Jerusalem. She gets knocked down by a guard who mistakes her for an intruder and when he finds out what happened he tells her go home, pack your things, we are moving in tomorrow morning at first light. That's just one of those things I guess, nothing doctrinal is effected because all the allusions to Christ and the church, God and Israel remain unchanged. I just feel like this gives us a window into the reign of Solomon early in his reign with a perspective you just don't get very much.

Those are the kind of things I struggle with, nothing earthshaking, just kind of obscure. When I seriously started studying Romans I pretty much had to forget the Roman's road to salvation that is so popular in tracts. When I managed that, I was able to finally sort through all the complex doctrinal issues and when all was said and done, the Roman's road actually made perfect sense to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Philis]

We are done Philis, I have stopped taking you serious and I'm certainly not going to do your research for you. Go read a couple of commentaries on Genesis 1, they are readily available with minimal effort and stay away from the TE sites, they are as bad as Liberal Theologians when it comes to rationalizing the text away to nothing.

I did manage to get ahold of part of the JPS commentary online, and it didn't say that "earth and heaven" meant "entire universe". I also read some of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture which is comprised of the views of the early church fathers, and it also said nothing of the sort.

You said that "every commentator has said as much". I asked for some references and now instead of citing just one, you say you are done with me. It makes me think you are making stuff up as you go along.

In light of that, I will bow out of this thread now.

 

[mark kennedy]

I did manage to get ahold of part of the JPS commentary online, and it didn't say that "earth and heaven" meant "entire universe". I also read some of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture which is comprised of the views of the early church fathers, and it also said nothing of the sort.

You said that "every commentator has said as much". I asked for some references and now instead of citing just one, you say you are done with me. It makes me think you are making stuff up as you go along.

In light of that, I will bow out of this thread now.

One more time Phillis and that is despite the fact that MM addressed this issue in far stronger terms then I have.

First of all if you want to know what the early church fathers had to say on the matter of creation, you have to learn it from the issues they were dealing with at the time:

For some time the early church fathers didn't see the creation of the universe as an issue, they were focused on other things. With the Hellenistic concepts of an eternal universe starting to emerge they systematically rejected any hint of this view that became a major tenant of Gnosticism. By the fourth century it was unanimous, God created everything from nothing.

Creation out of nothing Creation ex nihilo

There has long been some controversy over the length of days, it's not a big deal for me, but it has came up a lot. You have to take the early church fathers in the context they were living in:

Creation Days According to the Church Fathers

The Protestant traditions are uniformly behind the exegesis that God created the universe out of nothing.

"Where is God my Maker?" (Job 35:10). Concerning this the pagan philosophers wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations, some asserting the world's eternity and self-existence, others ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus "the world by wisdom knew not God," but took a great deal of pains to lose him.​

Matthew Henry Genesis 1

1. In the beginning--a period of remote and unknown antiquity, hid in the depths of eternal ages; and so the phrase is used in Proverbs 8:22 Proverbs 8:23 .
God--the name of the Supreme Being, signifying in Hebrew, "Strong," "Mighty." It is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here in the plural form, is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, namely, that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead--Father, Son, and Spirit, who were engaged in the creative work ( Proverbs 8:27 , John 1:3 John 1:10 , Ephesians 3:9 , Hebrews 1:2 , Job 26:13 ).
created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.
the heaven and the earth--the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God ( Acts 17:24 , Romans 11:36 ). After this preface, the narrative is confined to the earth. (Jamieson Fausset Brown, Commentary)​

Now that's it, there is no dissenting view with regards to the creation of the universe. Here is something from Jewish tradition:

"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise." (2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV)​

No one was really worried about Creatio ex Nihilo until the second century when the problems of eternal matter started to emerge in a heresy called Gnosticism. God created everything, ex nihilo, out of nothing which is the clear meaning of bara as it is used in Genesis 1:1.

The thing is, what the universe was created out of, if anything, remains something only God could know. Of course God creating the heavens and the earth refers to the universe. What else is left?

I'm not doing this with you anymore. There are too many other things I could be doing besides fielding pedantic criticisms already dealt with at length.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I have learned to expect the running debate on something that has come to be called 'apparent contradictions'. They are pretty much fabrications but at times get to be real issues for some people. One of the issues that has come up is the creation of man being retold in Genesis two. It's really just an expansion on what happened day 6 but someone threw me a curve ball today. They seemed to be under the impression that the plants were created day 6, that's really not the case.

God creates an emerging land mass day 3 and there is grass and trees. On day 6 there were cultivated plants still in the ground but the had not sprouted because God withheld the rain, still watering the other plants with a mist. Cultivated plants need more attention and in that day and age people supported their families with gardens, family gardens that were attached to their homes. There was also a major agricultural industry that was vital, especially in what was called the fertile crescent. This culture would have readily discerned the difference between wild plants like grass and trees and cultivated plants that required care and attention.

They are not the same plants and even if they were, some were fully formed and others had not yet sprouted exactly as described.

The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. (Gen 2:8)​

In addition to the creation of the entire ecosphere of earth's biological economy God planted a garden. Specifically, planted a garden on the same day (day 6) that he created man and the creatures of the field. God is not creating plant life on day 6, he is simply planting a garden in anticipation of the creation of man who would have dominion over all of the creation. That seems pretty obvious from looking at the text in the context it would no doubt have been taught by the Levites starting with Moses.

That's pretty much it, day three was the creation of plants and day 6 God plants a garden in anticipation of the creation of Man. None of these things are hard to sort out but you have to go back over the text pretty carefully in order to follow the narrative.

Another issue brought up was, of all things, whether or not the universe is created in Genesis 1:1. That hardly sounds like a question but since it has come up I went ahead and addressed it in the previous post.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

MM wrote:

The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) God created exactly as it says in Genesis, and this creation is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice.

MM, please don't take this as an attack, I mean it as an observation, and a door to discussion for both of us to understand (not accept) the other's position.

That observation is that your dichotomy above applies equally well (better, I think) to the flat earth/heliocentrism debate 400 years ago. It seems that practically all of Christianity has already taken your path #2, including yourself. Let me explain. First, here is your dichotomy, recast:

The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) The world is exactly as God says it is throughout the Bible, and this worldview is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice.
​

What worldview does a literal reading of scripture give?


Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And this was not only the traditional Christian interpretation, but was even an official church position.


The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, this has been the traditional Christian interpretation.

It seems that unless we go back to the literal worldview shown below, then we are on your path #2. The fact that the rejection of the literal worldview shown below, by practically all of Christendom, has not led to your #2 scenario in literally centuries, suggests, to me at least, that your dichotomy is not accurate.

MM, I know it's possible to interpret all the verses given above figuratively, so they don't give the worldview pictured here. In fact, I fully support those interpretations. My point is that by doing so, you, and most Christians, are already in scenario #2 in your dichotomy, and we all still have an intact faith, and haven't rejected the resurrection. With that being the case, why would seeing Genesis figuratively be any different from what you and I have already done?

Papias

 

[Philis]

One more time Phillis and that is despite the fact that MM addressed this issue in far stronger terms then I have.

First of all if you want to know what the early church fathers had to say on the matter of creation, you have to learn it from the issues they were dealing with at the time:

For some time the early church fathers didn't see the creation of the universe as an issue, they were focused on other things. With the Hellenistic concepts of an eternal universe starting to emerge they systematically rejected any hint of this view that became a major tenant of Gnosticism. By the fourth century it was unanimous, God created everything from nothing.

Creation out of nothing Creation ex nihilo

There has long been some controversy over the length of days, it's not a big deal for me, but it has came up a lot. You have to take the early church fathers in the context they were living in:

Creation Days According to the Church Fathers

The Protestant traditions are uniformly behind the exegesis that God created the universe out of nothing.

"Where is God my Maker?" (Job 35:10). Concerning this the pagan philosophers wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations, some asserting the world's eternity and self-existence, others ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus "the world by wisdom knew not God," but took a great deal of pains to lose him.
​

Matthew Henry Genesis 1

1. In the beginning--a period of remote and unknown antiquity, hid in the depths of eternal ages; and so the phrase is used in Proverbs 8:22 Proverbs 8:23 .
God--the name of the Supreme Being, signifying in Hebrew, "Strong," "Mighty." It is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here in the plural form, is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, namely, that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead--Father, Son, and Spirit, who were engaged in the creative work ( Proverbs 8:27 , John 1:3 John 1:10 , Ephesians 3:9 , Hebrews 1:2 , Job 26:13 ).
created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.
the heaven and the earth--the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God ( Acts 17:24 , Romans 11:36 ). After this preface, the narrative is confined to the earth. (Jamieson Fausset Brown, Commentary)
​

Now that's it, there is no dissenting view with regards to the creation of the universe. Here is something from Jewish tradition:

"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise." (2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV)
​

No one was really worried about Creatio ex Nihilo until the second century when the problems of eternal matter started to emerge in a heresy called Gnosticism. God created everything, ex nihilo, out of nothing which is the clear meaning of bara as it is used in Genesis 1:1.

The thing is, what the universe was created out of, if anything, remains something only God could know. Of course God creating the heavens and the earth refers to the universe. What else is left?

I'm not doing this with you anymore. There are too many other things I could be doing besides fielding pedantic criticisms already dealt with at length.

Thank you Mark for this more thorough response. I genuinly want to learn more about this and by you sharing these sorts of things in detail with references it forces me to constantly re-evaluate my views.

Despite the fact that it seems I am merely trying to argue with you, my real goal is to learn more about other perspectives, and only by pressing for more information will I be able to do that. Some of the sources you use may be completely new to me and I would have never thought to look into them had you not mentioned them. I have learned a tonne over the last week simply by pressing matters to the finer details and by trying to follow claims to their sources. It's been a week of growing for me.

I will look over this post in more detail and do some reading up on it. It seems you are weary of debating this with me at this time so I'll leave it where it is for now.

 

[Metal Minister]

MM wrote:

MM, please don't take this as an attack, I mean it as an observation, and a door to discussion for both of us to understand (not accept) the other's position.

That observation is that your dichotomy above applies equally well (better, I think) to the flat earth/heliocentrism debate 400 years ago. It seems that practically all of Christianity has already taken your path #2, including yourself. Let me explain. First, here is your dichotomy, recast:
The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) The world is exactly as God says it is throughout the Bible, and this worldview is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice.
What worldview does a literal reading of scripture give?

Unfortunately, you're are basing this on a mistaken assumption. There are only 2 ways to look at Genesis 1. Either it is literal or it is not. If it is not literal, then any other chapter in the bible can be construed by someone who either is not yet a Christian, or is a very new Christian in this same way. If God did not create exactly as He said, then what purpose did Jesus's death serve on the cross? If death reigned through evolution, then when God calls His creation "good" or "very good" then He is saying that death and suffering are "good" or "very good".

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Again, this is an incorrect assumption. None of these verses comes from Genesis, which is the account of God creating "the heavens and the earth." And we as YEC'S do not hold that there is no symbolism, or hyperbole in the bible, but simply that the Genesis account is not one of them.

The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And this was not only the traditional Christian interpretation, but was even an official church position.




The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, this has been the traditional Christian interpretation.

It seems that unless we go back to the literal worldview shown below, then we are on your path #2. The fact that the rejection of the literal worldview shown below, by practically all of Christendom, has not led to your #2 scenario in literally centuries, suggests, to me at least, that your dichotomy is not accurate.

MM, I know it's possible to interpret all the verses given above figuratively, so they don't give the worldview pictured here. In fact, I fully support those interpretations. My point is that by doing so, you, and most Christians, are already in scenario #2 in your dichotomy, and we all still have an intact faith, and haven't rejected the resurrection. With that being the case, why would seeing Genesis figuratively be any different from what you and I have already done?

Papias

Again, not one of those verses is from God's creation. This is where the sticking point lies. I can point to any number of verses as you did to show my point as well. Yec's again to do not say there isn't hyperbole in the bible, and much of what you posted is human speech in an effort to describe the workings of God. Working we only know the barest fringes of. (Job 26:14). Now, as to Genesis 1 being literal, if we do not take it literally, then how do we take sin literally considering sin entered into the world through the literal figures of Adam and Eve? I've seen it here by people who are Christian, stating they don't think death through sin is literal. (I'm not going to go through and "out them" so to speak, they're entitled to their opinion.) If Genesis is not literal, that makes Jesus out as a liar or deceiver. Think about His references to God's creation of man and woman. His references to the Sabbath, or when He call Satan the father of lies. If Genesis isnt literal, then these are false statements. Remember, Jesus very nearlt always qualified any parable to let people know what he was about to tell them was an allegory. I don't take what you said as attack, and I appreciate the questions. If we don't have discussions, we cannot grow in faith and in so cannot grow closer to Him. After all, if we don't grow, we wither.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

Let me try to put it another way Papias. I make the statement that the sky is blue. You can look up and yes it appears blue. But science will come in and say, N"o the sky isn't blue, that only a reflection of sun on the atmosphere...blah blah ad nauseam." The point is, science can never be a hermeneutical for the scriptures. And when we try to replace God's words of creation with science, we remove God from his throne and place science in His place. I hope this helps...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

I will look over this post in more detail and do some reading up on it. It seems you are weary of debating this with me at this time so I'll leave it where it is for now.

Fair enough, but I'm not weary, I'm kind of bored. I've heard all of this before and it never stands up to close scrutiny. Why don't you just read the text and take it for what it's worth and maybe see if the continuation into the rest of Genesis matches what your saying about Genesis 1.

Abraham Issac and Jacob cover a lot more territory in Genesis. What is more the creation is recounted again and again in the Psalms. When you getting some ideas about what Genesis teaches why not consult the people who where there when it was written and were raised for thousands of years on what it taught.

I promise you, they did not dwell long on what the 'firmament' was. They simply sang and prayed to God who created it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

I've been told I should pick up the books "Darwin's Black Box", "Darwin On Trial", and "Bones of Contention". Does anyone know if these are good books or not?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

HAHAHAHAHAH I just bought them, oh actually i bought Bones of contention last night and Darwins balck box a few weeks ago and Michael Behes other book (Besides DBB) The edge of evolution. Halfway through the edge of evolution and hes going into details about different mutations (that are taught in textbooks as 'beneficial mutations") and how they destroy things but in some circumstances (like sickle cell trait and it confers a resistance to malaria) it can confer something 'positive' , but he likens it to an army blowing up one of their own bridges on their own territory to stop an invading army coming in, yes the invading army can lo longer come in but it destroyed something of their own. Also Jonathan Sarfatis "refuting evolution and refuting compromise" are easy books to read, he goes over all the evo claims and puts them to sleep.

 

[Metal Minister]

Lol that's pretty funny! Of sickle cell I've heard the analogy, it was like cutting off your feet so you can't get athletes foot!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

HAHAHAHAHAH I just bought them, oh actually i bought Bones of contention last night and Darwins balck box a few weeks ago and Michael Behes other book (Besides DBB) The edge of evolution. Halfway through the edge of evolution and hes going into details about different mutations (that are taught in textbooks as 'beneficial mutations") and how they destroy things but in some circumstances (like sickle cell trait and it confers a resistance to malaria) it can confer something 'positive' , but he likens it to an army blowing up one of their own bridges on their own territory to stop an invading army coming in, yes the invading army can lo longer come in but it destroyed something of their own. Also Jonathan Sarfatis "refuting evolution and refuting compromise" are easy books to read, he goes over all the evo claims and puts them to sleep.

Darwin's Black Box is biology, if you like biology you'll love the book. Bones of Contention is actually pretty well organized, I like the discussion of fossil family reunion. It got me thinking and I ended up buying Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind's Beginnings, one of the best I have read on paleontology. This movie reads like a whos who of Intelligent Design, just about anything by these guys is informative.

Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life

Grace and peace,
Mark