Genesis 1: Exposition and Doctrine of Creation

Calminian · May 11, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Which makes me wonder if you have ever actually tried doing an exegetical study. You certainly don't appreciate one when you see it.

Why do you question if I've ever tried doing an exegetical study? simply because I disagree with yours? It's because I've done exegetical studies that I've found the errors in yours.

mark kennedy said:
You never did focus on the usage and my Old Testament professor considers Genesis 1:27 a parallelism. The definition is clear enough from the Vines which describes a couple of the words used to describe God creating 'bara' and 'asah', the actual definitions and lexicon discussions regarding usage seemed to annoy you.

There are O.T. professors that believe all kinds of things. I've come across many that believe the entire first chapter of the Bible is poetry. They are as wrong as you are.

mark kennedy said:
How should I know what 'He wouldn't do', it's used as a synonym for 'bara' sixty times, out of the 2600 times it's used in Scripture. You flipped out because you didn't like my source material and then failed to recommend your source material, because you had none.

Me flip out? I'm actually the civil one here.

I have no idea what you're addressing above. I don't recall every disputing any of that. You claimed that if God wanted to speak of creation, he wouldn't have used the term 'asah. This was wrong, and you were corrected. Sorry if that hurt your pride.

mark kennedy said:
Huge Ross is nothing of the sort, he is vehement anti-creationist. He denies the literal meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis 1. Like you, Hugh Ross will never address, much less defend, the doctrine of creation as essential Christian theism.

Believe me, I'm not defender of Ross. But you and him have very similar interpretation approaches. You're both old earth compromisers. You both have trouble with the events mentioned in chapter 1.

mark kennedy said:
I fail to see how a Christian trying to defend the doctrine of creation could do so without reference to the New Testament witness regarding creation, but that's something you two have in common.

Mark it's very clear to me, you're in full attack mode. I'm just not there with you. You can throw the kitchen sink and it won't phase me. I have total peace about the things I'm sharing, as they are from a sincere heart, and countless hours of research.

mark kennedy said:
The difference is that I take everything literally...

I disagree. You don't take the events on day 4 literally. You believe the sun was made on day 1. Your errors are different than Ross's but come from the same hermeneutical approach.

A good article on the subject: How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?

mark kennedy · May 11, 2014

Calminian said:
Why do you question if I've ever tried doing an exegetical study? simply because I disagree with yours? It's because I've done exegetical studies that I've found the errors in yours.

Exegetical means getting into the original, we have looked at two words for creation, there are at least two others.

There are O.T. professors that believe all kinds of things. I've come across many that believe the entire first chapter of the Bible is poetry. They are as wrong as you are.

You think because it's poetic it must be figurative, that's a false assumption. The rhyme and meter are simple style issues, Genesis 1 is still an historical narrative. It's not actually poetry, more like prose. It's just the literary style, that's all.

Me flip out? I'm actually the civil one here.

That's nice...

I have no idea what you're addressing above. I don't recall every disputing any of that. You claimed that if God wanted to speak of creation, he wouldn't have used the term 'asah. This was wrong, and you were corrected. Sorry if that hurt your pride.

That doesn't hurt my pride, it just confuses me that the use of 'bara' is of no interest to you. It's used five times and it's a very important term theologically.

Believe me, I'm not defender of Ross. But you and him have very similar interpretation approaches. You're both old earth compromisers. You both have trouble with the events mentioned in chapter 1.

I think if you knew anything about genetics and how it fits into all of this you would see a much bigger difference. I don't care how old the earth is but humans evolving from apes, there is no way you can reconcile that with Genesis 1. The term 'bara' is used three times in the description of the creation of man, Gen. 1:27.

Mark it's very clear to me, you're in full attack mode. I'm just not there with you. I have scripture on my side, and total peace about the things I'm sharing.

No actually I'm not in some attack mode, it's pretty straightforward.

I disagree. You don't take the events on day 4 literally. You believe the sun was made on day 1. Your errors are different than Ross's but come from the same hermeneutical approach.

Yea actually I do take the events of day 4 literally, just don't see any reason to conclude the sun and moon are created then. The separations and divisions that occupy so much of the early creation can account for why they are mentioned 'day 4'. It's very literal, God is sculpting the face of the earth.

Actually I believe the sun was made before day 1 of creation week. It might have been seconds before or billions of years, we just don't know. Creation week on the other hand is a reconstruction effort only God can do, including the creation of life (Gen. 1:21), and Man (Gen. 1:27), 'bara'.

Calminian · May 11, 2014

mark kennedy said:
...You think because it's poetic it must be figurative, that's a false assumption. ...

You mentioned this before, and it's still not correct. I never said this.

mark kennedy said:
That doesn't hurt my pride, it just confuses me that the use of 'bara' is of no interest to you.....

I never said this either.

mark kennedy said:
I think if you knew anything about genetics.....

genetics is irrelevant to exegesis, but Ross is in full agreement with you on genetics. He rejects darwinism.

mark kennedy said:
Yea actually I do take the events of day 4 literally, just don't see any reason to conclude the sun and moon are created then. ...

Ross says similar things. He believes he's being literal as well, with his own strange interpretations. He also has similar views about the sun and moon. Yes, he's wrong, but so are you.

mark kennedy said:
Actually I believe the sun was made before day 1 of creation week....

I believe that God created the heavens and all that is in them in 6 days. You don't, apparently. You can cite all the professors and dictionaries you like, your conflict is with scripture, not me.

KWCrazy · May 11, 2014

mark kennedy said:
There are some misconceptions about the Genesis 1 account of creation:

Oh, so true.
While I agree with most of what you say, there are some points with which I disagree. These are based on what is written, not what is taught.

The Age of the Earth is Irrelevant:

First disagreement. In Exodus 20:11, God tells us "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." That seems pretty inclusive to me. If the heavens and earth were millions of years old, God would not have said they were created in six days. I don't believe Genesis one to be a descriptive sentence; but rather a summary of the creation to come. Creation happened in the beginning. And the earth was without form and void... also in the beginning. Old earth proponents use the idea that Genesis 1:1 indicates a gap, but into this gap they insert fossils which could never have come into existence until well into the creation week.

The Sun was Created in Genesis 1:1

Creationists commonly believe the sun was created on day 4, that simply doesn't stand up to a sound exposition of the text. The word used isn't 'bara' which would indicate the sun was created from nothing. Instead the passage says God 'made' the sun and the moon to be lights in the heavens.

Yes and no.

Light was created on day one, but it was not the sun. The sun would come later. The purpose of light was to shine upon the earth and to mark the passage of time; one rotation of the earth: one evening and one morning. So what was light? To answer this, let's look at what it is today.

We get our light from our sun; a star not unlike many other stars which is essentially a mass of nuclear fusion which converts hydrogen to helium, in the process producing great amounts of radiation, heat and light. When God made this He called it "good" which is to say it was perfectly designed for what it had to do. If such a creation was perfect on day four, would it be less perfect on day one? My contention is "no." The entity God named "light" was created from nothing (Bara) on day one. On day four this glowing ball of light was transformed to become the sun, moon and stars. This is consistent with the use of the word "asah" meaning that they were formed from material already in existence. Cosmologists call this the Big Bang; the origination of the universe from one specific source. That source was originally called light. Now we have the sun to light our planet. We don't have two great lights, we have the sun by day and the moon by night. I believe that the sun, moon, and all the stars of the universe were formed from the single entity God once called "light."

This gives us a continuing chronology from the beginning of creation until its completion, six days later.

Does anyone seriously think that we should take creation figuratively because if we are then why wouldn't we take the Incarnation figuratively since they are inextricably linked?

Exactly. That's how Satan has eroded the faith of many believers and caused them to believe the doctrine of man over the written truth of the Scriptures. Way too many Christians believe as I was raised; that the earth is very old and man evolved over a very long time. I was told that Adam and Eve were real, but that the timeline was incomplete. I later found that the timeline was not incomplete at all.

Peace always,
KW

mark kennedy · May 11, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Oh, so true.
While I agree with most of what you say, there are some points with which I disagree. These are based on what is written, not what is taught.

Alright...

First disagreement. In Exodus 20:11, God tells us "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." That seems pretty inclusive to me. If the heavens and earth were millions of years old, God would not have said they were created in six days. I don't believe Genesis one to be a descriptive sentence; but rather a summary of the creation to come. Creation happened in the beginning. And the earth was without form and void... also in the beginning. Old earth proponents use the idea that Genesis 1:1 indicates a gap, but into this gap they insert fossils which could never have come into existence until well into the creation week.

Actually it doesn't matter, there is no doctrine attached to the age of the earth or the universe.

Yes and no.

Light was created on day one, but it was not the sun. The sun would come later. The purpose of light was to shine upon the earth and to mark the passage of time; one rotation of the earth: one evening and one morning. So what was light? To answer this, let's look at what it is today.

It was another light source, that doesn't mean there was no sun. It just couldn't be seen from, the 'surface of the earth'.

The entity God named "light" was created from nothing (Bara) on day one.

It doesn't say the light was created 'bara', it doesn't say that it was made, set or anything else, it just says that it was.

On day four this glowing ball of light was transformed to become the sun, moon and stars. This is consistent with the use of the word "asah" meaning that they were formed from material already in existence. Cosmologists call this the Big Bang; the origination of the universe from one specific source. That source was originally called light. Now we have the sun to light our planet. We don't have two great lights, we have the sun by day and the moon by night. I believe that the sun, moon, and all the stars of the universe were formed from the single entity God once called "light."

The divisions and separations account for the visibility of the heavenly objects, no need for them to be created 'bara', the atmosphere was reconstructed. Then life was made 'bara' (Gen. 1:21), then man (Gen. 1:27)

This gives us a continuing chronology from the beginning of creation until its completion, six days later.

Exactly. That's how Satan has eroded the faith of many believers and caused them to believe the doctrine of man over the written truth of the Scriptures. Way too many Christians believe as I was raised; that the earth is very old and man evolved over a very long time. I was told that Adam and Eve were real, but that the timeline was incomplete. I later found that the timeline was not incomplete at all.

Peace always,
KW

Got no problem with the time line from the genealogy myself. Still can't believe you called God 'The Entity', that was a new one on me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · May 12, 2014

Calminian said:
genetics is irrelevant to exegesis, but Ross is in full agreement with you on genetics. He rejects darwinism.

No he doesn't reject Darwinism, no Theistic Evolution would deny ape/human common ancestry, it doesn't happen. I thought it was strange that you didn't know the Genesis account but to completely miss that Hugh Ross is a Darwinian, that's just ridiculous.

Ross says similar things. He believes he's being literal as well, with his own strange interpretations. He also has similar views about the sun and moon. Yes, he's wrong, but so are you.

No one in their right mind believes what Hugh Ross is taking Genesis 1 literally, you cannot possibly believe that. Now this is making sense to me.

I believe that God created the heavens and all that is in them in 6 days. You don't, apparently. You can cite all the professors and dictionaries you like, your conflict is with scripture, not me.

Except you want to redefine what the words mean in the original and arrange the order of creation to suite your personal whims and caprices. I think your purpose here is to get me to argue the irrelevant, I think your just encouraging creationists to argue against something that easy for Darwinian to defend. That's what I think. An actual creationist would at least identify the doctrine of creation, even if just to have a point of reference. You just argue in circles for something that doesn't matter doctrinally. I think your just a TE sock puppet.

Have a nice day
Mark

Calminian · May 12, 2014

mark kennedy said:
No he doesn't reject Darwinism, no Theistic Evolution would deny ape/human common ancestry, it doesn't happen. I thought it was strange that you didn't know the Genesis account but to completely miss that Hugh Ross is a Darwinian, that's just ridiculous.

Hugh Ross is many things, but not a darwinist. Mark you're just confused. Ross was actually out here in my city a few weeks back preaching against evolution.

Again, he's a classic day-age creationists, in the likes of Norm Geisler, and a host of other older earthers. I don't know why you're fighting this. You can go on his website and read his views of evolution. He's like many christians in that he denies one error, but then completely falls for another. He accepts the science in one field, but denies it in another.

mark kennedy said:
No one in their right mind believes what Hugh Ross is taking Genesis 1 literally....

Well there I agree. And no one in their right mind agrees with your exegesis on Genesis 1. No one in their right mind reads Genesis 1 and comes to the conclusion that the sun an moon were made on day 1 or before day 1. No one in their right mind believes that God making the 2 great lights merely means God made them visible. No one in their right mind comes to the conclusion that there's a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Right-mindedness is looking at Ex. 20:11 and believing it, and not worrying about how this might conflict with modern naturalistic theories.

Now, just a disclaimer, I'm as susceptible as the next guy, and don't claim to be perfectly in my right mind. We are all marred by sin. That said, I think you missed this one, and have strayed from the clear plain meaning of the text.

mark kennedy said:
Except you want to redefine what the words mean in the original and arrange the order of creation to suite your personal whims and caprices. I think your purpose here is to get me to argue the irrelevant, I think your just encouraging creationists to argue against something that easy for Darwinian to defend. That's what I think. An actual creationist would at least identify the doctrine of creation, even if just to have a point of reference. You just argue in circles for something that doesn't matter doctrinally. I think your just a TE sock puppet.

Mark, you're completely alone in your gap theory among biblical creationists. All of the reputable creationists organizations would reject your interpretations in this area, and refute them almost identically to the way I have. If you don't believe me, check with AiG, CMI, ICR, CreationToday, Apologetics Press with your theory about the sun and moon, and gap after Gen. 1:1. They would put you in the category of Ross, Scofield and other concordist compromisers. Trust me, it's not just me.

And why are you so preoccupied with my motives? You really think I'm just trolling you? It's that hard for you to believe I genuinely disagree with your exegesis? It is so hard to believe I think the mistakes you making are serious and relevant?

rockytopva · May 12, 2014

This is the timetable that I would put together... I have 7,360 years, which seems to me like a 360 year extension of grace.

I believe that the universe is about 15 billions years old and is the result and in response to Lucifer's rebellion.

If... E = mc2 ... Then m (matter) = E/c2 (energy)

Therefore, for the big boom to have occurred the matter had to have been there before the light and energy (E/c2), as the scripture says...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. - Genesis 1:2

I would imagine, with these words... 'Let there be light (Genesis 1:3)', that the earth (the mass) turned into energy and light (E/c2) and expanded out from a point of origin, turning into what solar systems the Father willed it to. So the plasma (E/c2) is actually mass that has changed state.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:4,5

I believe that 15 billion years took place between Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4. God divided the light and the darkness by putting the earth in orbit around the sun thus creating the first day of the Earth's creation. But... The universe was created 15 billion years (give or take a few billion years) before that.

***So... The 7000 year theory, in my mind, begins after Genesis 1:3***

4300 - 2644 BC - Adam to the great flood: About 1,650 years
2644 - 1730 BC - The Patriarchs - From Noah to Joseph: About 1,000 years
1730 -1450 BC - From Joseph to Moses: So Joesphs bones were in Egypt about 300 years
1450 - 33 AD - The time of the Laws of Moses was about 1500 years.
33 - 66 AD Ephesus Apostolic 33 years, not long! All they which are in Asia be turned away from me II Timothy 1:15
66 - 312 AD - Smyrna Martyrs Persecutions ten days Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions. Ended with Constantine
312 - 800 AD - Pergamos Orthodox A pyrgos is a fortified structure Needed for the dark ages.
800-1450 AD Thyatira Catholic The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. Began with Charlemange
1450-1700 AD Sardis Protestant A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
1700-1940 AD Philadelphia Methodist To obtain sanctification was to do so with love. Anabaptists -Weslayan -Moravian
1940 - 2060 AD Laodicea Charismatic Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?
2060 - 3060 AD - The Millennial reign

The time of the horseman runs with the last couple of church ages...

1. White - Democracy - Came about along with the Philadelphian church
2. Red - Communism - Note the red flag, hammer and sickle.
3. Black - Islam - Note the desire to disrupt the global economy.
4. Pale - Anti-Christ - A brief 3.5 year reign.

Isaac Newton picked the 2060 AD end date and I will go along with him with the following disclaimer...

And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half. Daniel 12:7

From a folio cataloged as Yahuda MS 7.3g, f. 13v:

"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060. Isaac Newton

As Charlemagne was crowned king on December 25, 800 by Pope Leo the III so the day of Christ's coming will be on Christmas Day, 2060. If the rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) occurs seven years before the time of Christs coming the date of the rapture 12.25 2053. However Isaac Newton notes

It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons which God hath put into his own breast." Isaac Newton

Calminian · May 12, 2014

rockytopva said:
This is the timetable that I would put together... I have 7,360 years, which seems to me like a 360 year extension of grace.

I believe that the universe is about 15 billions years old and is the result and in response to Lucifer's rebellion.

You lost me at "Lucifer's rebellion." The proper name, "Lucifer" is not mentioned in the Bible, but I take it you man Satan's fall (and are using a King James translation). Why do you believe this happened 15 billions years ago, and not in the Garden of Eden as Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28 claim?

....“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
“You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)

I read this along with the Curse that was issued in Genesis 3 on the serpent (the serpent of old, which is the devil) and it seems clear Satan's rebellion and curse took place in Eden. Yet you say it happened 15 billion years ago. Do you have any biblical evidence for this?

rockytopva · May 12, 2014

Calminian said:
You lost me at "Lucifer's rebellion." The proper name, "Lucifer" is not mentioned in the Bible,

Lucifer = "light-bearer"

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - Isaiah 14:12

Calminian · May 12, 2014

rockytopva said:
Lucifer = "light-bearer"

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - Isaiah 14:12

Well the Lucifer name is a minor point. If you believe Satan was once named, Lucifer, fine (though virtually all modern translations do not use that name, nor translate it as a proper noun).

But that's minor in my view. What about the other issues I mentioned? Do you have any evidence for believing Satan/Lucifer fell 15 billions years ago? What do you do with the verses that say he fell in the Garden of Eden? What do you do with the Ezekiel quote above? Do you believe Eden has been around 15 billion years?

mark kennedy · May 12, 2014

rockytopva said:
This is the timetable that I would put together... I have 7,360 years, which seems to me like a 360 year extension of grace.

I believe that the universe is about 15 billions years old and is the result and in response to Lucifer's rebellion.

The rebellion of Lucifer, Satan or whatever you want to call him is unknown. When they (the angels) were created is unknown.

If... E = mc2 ... Then m (matter) = E/c2 (energy)

Therefore, for the big boom to have occurred the matter had to have been there before the light and energy (E/c2), as the scripture says...

I am not finding that especially helpful.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That's about all we really have, there was darkness upon the face of the deep, God calls forth the light. It seems a bit odd to me that God would divide the day from the light based on an artificial light, it's based on movement in relation to the sun.

But... The universe was created 15 billion years (give or take a few billion years) before that.

Or it could have been fifteen seconds.

***So... The 7000 year theory, in my mind, begins after

4300 - 2644 BC - Adam to the great flood: About 1,650 years
2644 - 1730 BC - The Patriarchs - From Noah to Joseph: About 1,000 years
1730 -1450 BC - From Joseph to Moses: So Joesphs bones were in Egypt about 300 years
1450 - 33 AD - The time of the Laws of Moses was about 1500 years.
33 - 66 AD Ephesus – Apostolic – 33 years, not long! “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” –
66 - 312 AD - Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions. Ended with Constantine
312 - 800 AD - Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
800-1450 AD Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. Began with Charlemange
1450-1700 AD Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
1700-1940 AD Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love. Anabaptists -Weslayan -Moravian
1940 - 2060 AD Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?
2060 - 3060 AD - The Millennial reign

The churches in Asia Minor were basically satellites of Ephesus, the Gospel followed the Roman Road that ran in a big circle from Ephesus to Ephesus basically, each of those other churches were on that route. What your doing is called allegorizing and it can go too far.

The time of the horseman runs with the last couple of church ages...

1. White - Democracy - Came about along with the Philadelphian church
2. Red - Communism - Note the red flag, hammer and sickle.
3. Black - Islam - Note the desire to disrupt the global economy.
4. Pale - Anti-Christ - A brief 3.5 year reign.

That's absurd, the death toll alone makes a literal fulfillment of the passages from Revelations you are claiming fulfilled is absurd. Democracy was not even an interest of Christian scholars until sometime in the Protestant Reformation. Islam didn't come around until the 7th century or so and the Anti-Christ is a king who receives his crown after the opening of the first seal, not the fourth.

Isaac Newton picked the 2060 AD end date and I will go along with him with the following disclaimer...

“And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half.” –Daniel 12:7

Isaac Newton's eschatology was dreadful...

From a folio cataloged as Yahuda MS 7.3g, f. 13v:

"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.” – Isaac Newton

Oh boy, another date setting prediction, it's not like I've never seen one of those before.

“It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons which God hath put into his own breast." –Isaac Newton

I love what Newton showed us about the principles of motion and calculus, he really deserves a lot of credit. When it comes to Bible study, he is not as accomplished. I don't think I will be appealing to Newton for an exegesis of Genesis 1.

Grace and peace,
Mark

SkyWriting · May 13, 2014

mark kennedy said:
The first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed are very close to John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1 with regards to creation and the Incarnation.

I don't allow any creeds in my hypothetical congregation.

I regard the age of the earth as irrelevant, the creation of life in general and man in particular to be about 6,000 years ago.

No leader or apostle ever considered any age or dates other than for the purpose of documenting heredity.

mark kennedy · May 13, 2014

SkyWriting said:
I don't allow any creeds in my hypothetical congregation.

The Nicene Creed is the general standard for being considered a Christian on CF.

No leader or apostle ever considered any age or dates other than for the purpose of documenting heredity.

That's why two of the Gospels start right off with a genealogy, because lineage doesn't really matter to Christian leaders, unless you happen to be the Messiah.

Ellwood3 · May 13, 2014

mark kennedy said:
The thread is intended for Creationists and my hope is that we will get a chance to study Genesis 1 together. I've been at this for years and I'm convinced that the secular world has focused on the doctrine of Creation because so much of redemptive history and the Gospel is inextricably linked to it. Just as God created the heavens and the earth the promise of the Gospel is that you can be a new creation (John 3:3, 16).

I have my differences with the Roman Catholic Church but I think this quote from Pope Benedict XVI is profoundly insightful:
"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI" (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)
Grace and peace,
Mark

First, since this is for creationists, I define "creationist" as a person who chooses Christ as Saviour (I'm talking about the Christian God) and who accepts God--Father, Son and Spirit--as Creator. I am not defining it as one who trusts in creationism, a false belief against evolution.

A creationist can be an evolutionist--one who seeks a relationship with the Creator God and trusts in Him, and who also believes God created using evolutionary means.

Second since you quoted one Catholic, there is another great quote, by Augustine, regarding this.

See it here: Saint Augustine, on Genesis | God of Evolution

mark kennedy · May 13, 2014

Ellwood3 said:
First, since this is for creationists, I define "creationist" as a person who chooses Christ as Saviour (I'm talking about the Christian God) and who accepts God--Father, Son and Spirit--as Creator. I am not defining it as one who trusts in creationism, a false belief against evolution.

As if they were mutually exclusive, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator. It's not a belief against evolution to believe life was created, it's just a difference of opinion with regards to the point of origin.

A creationist can be an evolutionist--one who seeks a relationship with the Creator God and trusts in Him, and who also believes God created using evolutionary means.

It doesn't work that way, you can't limit God's creative work to 'evolutionary means', whatever that is.

Second since you quoted one Catholic, there is another great quote, by Augustine, regarding this.

You don't even post the quote...

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

― Augustine of Hippo

See it here:Saint Augustine, on Genesis | God of Evolution

Have a nice day
Mark

Calminian · May 15, 2014

Mark are you saying that evolutionists can't be saved without giving up evolution? If you're going that far, I'd have to disagree. While Genesis is the logical foundation of the Gospel, this doesn't mean that people can't still accept Christ even on an illogical foundation. The theology would be problematic for sure, but we're not saved by good theology. Faith the size of a mustard seed will do it.

I could argue that the rejection of Genesis has had an affect on the church, particularly its decline, but I can't go so far as to say that a rejection of YEC (or in your case, gap theory) is a requirement of salvation. Hopefully you're not saying that.

mark kennedy · May 15, 2014

Calminian said:
Mark are you saying that evolutionists can't be saved without giving up evolution?

No, I'm saying evolution has very little to do with it. When you think of it, it's a theory of natural history. The Scriptures are marked by clear and specific genealogies regarding human history. That's why I don't care how old the universe is, the Scriptures put great emphasis on the creation of man. 'In him was life', is how John describes it, did you ever notice John doesn't include a genealogy. It doesn't need one, because 'in him was life', Christ is the Creator, not the Designer, not the Guider but the Creator of life.

This is a very important, a foundational doctrine, the doctrine of creation is something we should take very seriously. It transcends Scripture.

If you're going that far, I'd have to disagree. While Genesis is the logical foundation of the Gospel, this doesn't mean that people can't still accept Christ even on an illogical foundation. The theology would be problematic for sure, but we're not saved by good theology. Faith the size of a mustard seed will do it.

Genesis is foundational, God creates the living system of this planet. More importantly, at least it should be to you personally, God makes us new creatures in Christ. This isn't some minor semantical detail, it's God creating in the 'bara' sense of the word. I will not abandon the history indicated by the genealogies, I've never compromised on that. Human history is unique and it began with the creation of Adam.

I could argue that the rejection of Genesis has had an affect on the church, particularly its decline, but I can't go so far as to say that a rejection of YEC (or in your case, gap theory) is a requirement of salvation. Hopefully you're not saying that.

Of course I'm not rejecting Genesis, don't be silly. What really puzzles me, my own morbid fascination with these endless debates. If this is the true history then what would that tell us about the one that can't be true, a shared lineage with apes. They can't both be true, Adam can't be created and have ancestors, so what if the history involved in 'evolution' as a theory of natural history is bogus? Then the line of demarcation starts to emerge.

So what if it's all contrived, the whole stone age, ape man, homo Habilis is really just a story? What goes unappreciated here is that the Old Testament isn't a secondary source, it has credibility as historical text. If it says God created in a week that it has every right to make that claim without some modernist coming around and saying it's a metaphor. Genesis has some figurative language but very little as compared to say, the poetic books.

Genesis is history, as Creationists we do well to emphasis that point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Calminian · May 17, 2014

If I deciphered the above I'll take that as a no, it's not essential for salvation. I'm glad you don't take it that far. While I don't think a correct understanding of Genesis is essential to salvation, I would say it's essential to a healthy well balanced theology, and a relevant church. I would even go so far as to say it has an eternal impact, and can affect the church's witness to the world. But wouldn't feel comfortable going any further. The Gospel is very basic, and the faith of a mustard seed is sufficient in salvation.

mark kennedy · May 18, 2014

Calminian said:
If I deciphered the above I'll take that as a no, it's not essential for salvation. I'm glad you don't take it that far. While I don't think a correct understanding of Genesis is essential to salvation, I would say it's essential to a healthy well balanced theology, and a relevant church. I would even go so far as to say it has an eternal impact, and can affect the church's witness to the world. But wouldn't feel comfortable going any further. The Gospel is very basic, and the faith of a mustard seed is sufficient in salvation.

Well as far as salvation, it's a 'bara' event, that's the connection to the Creation. The word of God is often compared to seed, some wither and die and some bear fruit. Understanding Genesis isn't that hard, you either believe it or you don't. I see nothing in the sciences, especially the life sciences that is a problem for the Genesis account of creation. Of course you will understand God as Creator, you know that whether you repent or not (Rom. 1:18-20)

Salvation is a new creation, the New Testament couldn't be any clearer on that point. Do note that the Scriptures not only begin with creation, they end with it. Creation isn't just an event in the distant past, it's a promise to whosoever will believe, and a promise of a new creation at the end of the age. Yes, creation is essential doctrine and inextricably linked to salvation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Genesis 1: Exposition and Doctrine of Creation

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Love to pray! :)

Senior Veteran

Love to pray! :)

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

The Librarian

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency