My theory on creation.

[Speedwell]

Genesis is not history, really?

That's a little strong, but it certainly is not history written to modern standards of facticity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 205627

Do you see "fix" in the source that you provided? I do not.

Then you can't be helped since it is as plain as the nose on your face.

"The world" "not" "do moved"

The English is terrible of course since it is a word for word translation, but the meaning is clear.

Do you see anything at all that supports your statement?

"So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..."

Obviously, you have no idea what context mean or else, you just ignore it and that is my guess.

LOL, oh my. You really should not make such statements if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I am still waiting for you to provide scripture, in context, just as it is written, that corroborates your statement...

I have. It is not my fault that you can't be honest about this subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis is not history, really?

Of course not.

There was no Adam and Eve. There was no Noah. There was no "tower of Babel" where languages arose. If you had a book with a series of morality tales that did not match up to history "history"?

 

[bhsmte]

Even though you did not answer my question, I will answer this one. I absolutely do have and will until Science can provide empirical evidence of, "in the beginning," where, when and how did space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and, in what sequence. Furthermore, I will make a bold prediction that science never will provide answers to those questions from the natural laws of science. MY belief. If one does not accept Genesis, you might as well throw out the entire Bible because Genesis sets the foundation for all of scripture, IMO.

What question did I not answer? Be specific please and a post number would help.

 

[bhsmte]

Genesis is not history, really?

Have you ever heard of the historical method? This is the process historians utilize, to determine what is likely true about the past and or written works. If you believe Genesis is literally and historically true, please show how the historical method would demonstrate this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't think so. God is always in the picture and need not be tinkering with mere naturalistic processes because of it.

I agree that God is always there.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Even though you did not answer my question, I will answer this one. I absolutely do have and will until Science can provide empirical evidence of, "in the beginning," where, when and how did space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and, in what sequence. Furthermore, I will make a bold prediction that science never will provide answers to those questions from the natural laws of science. MY belief. If one does not accept Genesis, you might as well throw out the entire Bible because Genesis sets the foundation for all of scripture, IMO.

The Big Bang Theory was proposed by Catholic clergy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Genesis is not history, really?

It certainly describes historical events, but it's not history the way Chronicles and Kings are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big Bang Theory was proposed by Catholic clergy.

Yep, Geroges Lemaitre.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

View attachment 205627

Do you see "fix" in the source that you provided? I do not.

Do you see anything at all that supports your statement?

"So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..."

Obviously, you have no idea what context mean or else, you just ignore it and that is my guess.

Wait, What? Really?? It says it Right There! "The Earth" "shall" "be stable" - "the World" "not" "do moved" -how do you *plainly* read it then?

 

[xianghua]

Creation, there is the BB theory which seems to be the one most Genesis deniers believe in and some others with a little different twist. I happen to be one that believes God said what He meant and He meant what he said so I have a theory about the NEC vs OEC.

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

In what would become to be known as day one, He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to temporarily set up day and night until earth and the sun were created.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

On the third day, the waters below the firmament were gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The earth then brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

It was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time.


There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.

The time dimension was not created until the universe was placed into position. Scripture informs that God stretches the heavens, just like science came to believe thousands of years later.

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

you may also like this thread:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[dmmesdale]

It (Genesis) certainly describes historical events, but it's not history the way Chronicles and Kings are.

The question being was it history to Moses, the presumed author and that would be a big yes. If it was history to the author, then it was meant to be read as history. Not anachronistic assessments far after the fact. Quote.

presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.

1 Chronicles 1 contains Genealogies that start with Adam thru Noah and beyond. If anything Chronicles validates the Genesis account. If they are different, that is to be expected since the authors are different as well as the times. If the three reports you reference were all the same, then critics would say it was all by the same author at around the same time.

 

[dmmesdale]

You're speaking of Darwinism. Evolution is not necessarily Darwinism.

If it is not Darwin then what is it and how is it distinct from Darwin? Get your definitions down because the word evolution means far different things to different people.

Evolution, when God is the one who begins everything and directs everything, only expands on Genesis 1-2.

Expand, how so? They are contradictory accounts relative to the history of man. You claimed,
''By the way, evolution in no way contradicts creationism.'' Then come across with these vague sweeping generalizations which really does not account for the obvious differences.

 

[tevans9129]

LOL, oh my. You really should not make such statements if you want anyone to take you seriously.

And you want to be taken seriously when you make ludicrous statements such as the one below?

So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it

Can you quote where the Bible only describes...the Earth as being flat and everything rotating around it?

BTW, if I noticed, then I have no doubt that others would also notice that you posted in a way that would make it appear that I made the ludicrous statement rather than you. IMO, that is being dishonest, do you disagree?

 

[mark kennedy]

Creation, there is the BB theory which seems to be the one most Genesis deniers believe in and some others with a little different twist. I happen to be one that believes God said what He meant and He meant what he said so I have a theory about the NEC vs OEC.

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

In what would become to be known as day one, He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to temporarily set up day and night until earth and the sun were created.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

On the third day, the waters below the firmament were gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The earth then brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

It was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time.


There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.

The time dimension was not created until the universe was placed into position. Scripture informs that God stretches the heavens, just like science came to believe thousands of years later.

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

Got another scenario for you. God creates the universe including the stars, moon and earth billions of years ago and life about 6 thousand years ago. The creation account of creation week describes the clearing of the clouds, separation of water from land etc, then finally God creates man.

What about Creation story part ii where Man was created first?

That's not what it says, the creation of man is revisited in the second chapter with special emphasis on the garden and the details of man's creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

If it is not Darwin then what is it and how is it distinct from Darwin? Get your definitions down because the word evolution means far different things to different people. Expand, how so? They are contradictory accounts relative to the history of man. You claimed,
''By the way, evolution in no way contradicts creationism.'' Then come across with these vague sweeping generalizations which really does not account for the obvious differences.

The theory of natural selection is based on naturalistic assumptions. "The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition’" (Preface, On the Origin of Species). That is mutually exclusive with creation, design or miraculous interposition of any kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you want to be taken seriously when you make ludicrous statements such as the one below?



Can you quote where the Bible only describes...the Earth as being flat and everything rotating around it?

BTW, if I noticed, then I have no doubt that others would also notice that you posted in a way that would make it appear that I made the ludicrous statement rather than you. IMO, that is being dishonest, do you disagree?

But there was nothing ludicrous about that statement. You totally failed in your weak attempt to deny it. You found one verse out of, what was it six or so, that you could debate the interpretation.

By the way, I did show that the Bible says that the Earth is fixed in space. That means when we observe things moving relative to it, such as the Moon and the Sun, that would mean that they are the ones moving around it. I see logic is a skill that you do not have.

So change your request, it is improper and failed as posted, and I will give you the flat Earth verses, though I did that already too.

You really need to pay more attention.

 

[mark kennedy]

But there was nothing ludicrous about that statement. You totally failed in your weak attempt to deny it. You found one verse out of, what was it six or so, that you could debate the interpretation.

By the way, I did show that the Bible says that the Earth is fixed in space. That means when we observe things moving relative to it, such as the Moon and the Sun, that would mean that they are the ones moving around it. I see logic is a skill that you do not have.

So change your request, it is improper and failed as posted, and I will give you the flat Earth verses, though I did that already too.

You really need to pay more attention.

What you will find is that the ancient Hebrews were uninterested in astronomy or cosmology. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and even measured it. The ancient Hebrews didn't bother with such things, verses quoted out of context you think indicate otherwise are pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you will find is that the ancient Hebrews were uninterested in astronomy or cosmology. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and even measured it. The ancient Hebrews didn't bother with such things, verses quoted out of context you think indicate otherwise are pointless.

The verses indicate a lack of knowledge of the Earth. Yes the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round, but we are not discussing them. And the problem is one can't claim to use reason and treat those verses that I sited as being mere poetry, which I actually agree with, and at the same time accept the myths of Genesis as being literally true. The same thought processes that tell us that those verses are not to be taken literally will result in one not taking Genesis literally.

It is rather amazing that literalists cannot understand this tactic. Or perhaps they do and they just can't stand the fact that they are wrong and inconsistent.