One Long Argument Against God

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't care how old the earth is, it's irrelevant.

If you don't mind me saying - it's a bit odd that you don't care hold old the Earth is. Wouldn't the fact that the Earth is billions of years old contradict the idea that everything in existance was created in six 24-hour periods?

 

[mark kennedy]

If you don't mind me saying - it's a bit odd that you don't care hold old the Earth is. Wouldn't the fact that the Earth is billions of years old contradict the idea that everything in existance was created in six 24-hour periods?

No, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, then in verse 2 it starts to describe the creation of life on the planet, aka, creation week. For the earth to be billions of years old causes no real difficulties, it's the creation of life in general and man in particular that gets into essential doctrine. The earth could have sat untouched for billions of years but when God created life it was covered in clouds that allowed no light in and the surface was covered with water. That's exactly what the text allows and explicitly states.

I'm a young earth creationist by default, not that I have ever really been impressed with the dating of the earth of the cosmos. It is irrelevant to the doctrinal issues as largely irrelevant to my philosophy of history.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, then in verse 2 it starts to describe the creation of life on the planet, aka, creation week. For the earth to be billions of years old causes no real difficulties, it's the creation of life in general and man in particular that gets into essential doctrine.

I'm a young earth creationist by default, not that I have ever really been impressed with the dating of the earth of the cosmos. It is irrelevant to the doctrinal issues as largely irrelevant to my philosophy of history.

Again, I hope you don't mind me saying but if you're happy to accept that the days described in Genesis were not literal 24-hour days, then why is it so important that the rest of Genesis be taken literally?

 

[mark kennedy]

Again, I hope you don't mind me saying but if you're happy to accept that the days described in Genesis were not literal 24-hour days, then why is it so important that the rest of Genesis be taken literally?

I have never accepted the 24 hour day was non-literal, that's not what I said. What I was trying to tell you is that the universe could have been created billions of years ago as described in Genesis 1:1. My point was the creation week did not start until Genesis 1:2.

As a matter of fact I would have no problem with a non-literal creation account providing certain considerations. The special creation is Adam is hardly a dispensable doctrine since it's inextricably linked to original sin and justification by faith in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15.

However, my convictions are based on the New Testament. Even a non-literal Adam and Eve is compatible with Christian theism providing all essential doctrine is maintained, I know exactly how I would do it.

I have been convinced that TOE as natural history is fallacious and even fraudulent in it's arguments. Were I persuaded otherwise Genesis allows for some relatively broad interpretations that are not mutually exclusive with the naturalistic evolution of life on this planet.

I just happen to be convinced otherwise.

 

[elopez]

I don't care how old the earth is, it's irrelevant. I'm a Creationist period because it's essential Christian theism. So how do we know that there is a God? I have an answer for this but I want to know if your willing to demonstrate the convictions of your beliefs.

Let's start off with an easy one:

Can you be a Christian without being a Creationist?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Creationism, as i have claimed, is not essential to Christianity. This is because, as you have claimed, the age of the earth,and universe are mainly irrelevant, which only means that what is relevant is that God did indeed create the universe and earth.

In short, that is why I think it is possible to be Christian while dejying creationism or YEC, unless yiur view of creationism is different of the mainstream view.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationism, as i have claimed, is not essential to Christianity. This is because, as you have claimed, the age of the earth,and universe are mainly irrelevant, which only means that what is relevant is that God did indeed create the universe and earth.

That's Creationism, God created the heavens and the earth. That's what Genesis is describing, God creating the heavens and the earth. Not passively, but directly, not providentially but miraculously. The doctrine of the incarnation is sandwiched in between to confession of Creation:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made; (Nicene Creed)​

What is your stand on the incarnation? Do you believe that God became man and dwelt among us, that in him was life and that life was the light of men?

Newsflash! Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the cosmos or the planet, sun or stars. Genesis 1 is about the creation of life on this planet This is affirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament which brings me to an actual point.

How can you deny creation without denying the incarnation?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Dieselman]

I have never accepted the 24 hour day was non-literal, that's not what I said. What I was trying to tell you is that the universe could have been created billions of years ago as described in Genesis 1:1. My point was the creation week did not start until Genesis 1:2.

As a matter of fact I would have no problem with a non-literal creation account providing certain considerations. The special creation is Adam is hardly a dispensable doctrine since it's inextricably linked to original sin and justification by faith in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15.

However, my convictions are based on the New Testament. Even a non-literal Adam and Eve is compatible with Christian theism providing all essential doctrine is maintained, I know exactly how I would do it.

I don't think the first days were 24 hours. The earth is slowing down. It was probably closer to 23 hrs. Genesis 1:1 is a summary sentance. Genesis 1:2 begins the actual story of Creation. In it, the author makes no question that the days were an evening and a moring (a single rotation of the earth); that light and darkness existed before the sun moon and stars and grasses and trees bearing fruit pre-dated the sun. Given that the timeline is begun from the first day to Adam, and from Adam forward through the birth of Christ, it is clear that the author wanted us to know how old the earth is. Why? What possible relevence did it have at the time to people who couldn't have understood any of it? Answer? None.

I think that further proof of the omniscience of God can be drawn from the fact that He knew one day man would have enough knowledge to dispute His word and to draw their own conclusions about the universe around them. His one requirement for salvation is faith. Does that mean those who don't believe in His account of the creation; who doubt His word despite references to Adam and Noah by His son Jesus; those who believe that man was not created special will not find redemption? Not in itself, maybe. However, I don't want to stand in front of God on Judgement Day and have to answer why I didn't believe His word was true.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think the first days were 24 hours. The earth is slowing down. It was probably closer to 23 hrs. Genesis 1:1 is a summary sentance. Genesis 1:2 begins the actual story of Creation. In it, the author makes no question that the days were an evening and a moring (a single rotation of the earth); that light and darkness existed before the sun moon and stars and grasses and trees bearing fruit pre-dated the sun. Given that the timeline is begun from the first day to Adam, and from Adam forward through the birth of Christ, it is clear that the author wanted us to know how old the earth is. Why? What possible relevence did it have at the time to people who couldn't have understood any of it? Answer? None.

The fact that the days are ordinal (1,2,3..) and includes the 'evening' and 'morning' as a description clearly indicates a normative day. I have looked into this in the original and guess what, normally, 'Yom' or 'Day' generally means a 24 hour period aka, a day. The narrative is from the face of the earth so the sun, moon and stars were already created before creation week. 'Let there be light' simply let the light in.

He wanted to relate what he heard from the Creator concerning the creation of life on this planet and how it effected them. They had seen the miracles of the Exodus and still did not believe, at least not most of them and they died in that dessert.

Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age , because she judged him faithful who had promised. (Heb 11:1)​

When Sara heard the promise she laughed, when the child of promise he was named 'Isaac' which means 'she laughed'. Abraham believed it the first time he heard it but when he was pushing a hundred he wasn't so sure but he believed the one who made the promise was faithful.

Faith is not about believing every promise literally as much as believing the one who made the promise is faithful.

I think that further proof of the omniscience of God can be drawn from the fact that He knew one day man would have enough knowledge to dispute His word and to draw their own conclusions about the universe around them. His one requirement for salvation is faith. Does that mean those who don't believe in His account of the creation; who doubt His word despite references to Adam and Noah by His son Jesus; those who believe that man was not created special will not find redemption? Not in itself, maybe. However, I don't want to stand in front of God on Judgement Day and have to answer why I didn't believe His word was true.

All that will matter on judgment day are the thoughts and inclinations of your heart. I have a few rules about Christian living, they include: 'turn the other cheek, go the extra mile and forgive as you are forgiven'. There is one other rule of faith with regards to the salvation of others:

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:7-9)​

In brief, don't ask who is going to heaven or hell, not even in your heart. Believe the one who made the promise is faithful and you will be saved.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Dieselman]

The fact that the days are ordinal (1,2,3..) and includes the 'evening' and 'morning' as a description clearly indicates a normative day. I have looked into this in the original and guess what, normally, 'Yom' or 'Day' generally means a 24 hour period aka, a day. The narrative is from the face of the earth so the sun, moon and stars were already created before creation week. 'Let there be light' simply let the light in.
Mark

That's a possible interpretation, although in sequence:
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Meaning the earth was in a gasseous state at first, not yet solidified and there was no source of light to find it. Neither, though, was there any barrier to block the light. When God said, "Let there be light," Light came into existence, but the earth was already created. The sun, moon and stars did not exist until the fourth day. There were already grasses and trees yielding fruit, which again signifies that everything was created in its mature form.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So then, the earth was already covered in grasses and trees before the sun, moon and stars were created. This speaks to the specialness of creation, because if the universe were already in existence God had merely to reveal it to the earth. He said "Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.." That is their stated purpose. Earth wasn't merely a part in a much larger creation, but rather the focus of creation itself.

Is it possible that the creation of the universe around us that God referrenced was merely our galaxy? Possibly. It's entirely possible that other galaxies are other creations. Nothing precludes this, and there are hints at "worlds without end." All of this only points to the magesty of God and has no particular bearing on our lives. Regardless, what we DO know is that God revealed the manner in which He created the universe to man. Whether we believe Him or continue to indulge scientifically unsound theories to buoy our denial is up to us.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a possible interpretation, although in sequence:
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Meaning the earth was in a gasseous state at first, not yet solidified and there was no source of light to find it. Neither, though, was there any barrier to block the light. When God said, "Let there be light," Light came into existence, but the earth was already created. The sun, moon and stars did not exist until the fourth day. There were already grasses and trees yielding fruit, which again signifies that everything was created in its mature form.

That's not really the picture I'm getting, the sun was utterly blocked and the surface was covered in water. There is no creation of the earth in the account of creation week, that's because it's already made along with the sun, moon and stars. That happened in Genesis 1:1. So if you take the creation account as being a narrative from the surface of the earth you simply have the earth being prepared for life in three days, life being created in the subsequent days.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

So then, the earth was already covered in grasses and trees before the sun, moon and stars were created. This speaks to the specialness of creation, because if the universe were already in existence God had merely to reveal it to the earth. He said "Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.." That is their stated purpose. Earth wasn't merely a part in a much larger creation, but rather the focus of creation itself.

If you are talking about the 4th day and the quote indicates exactly that, then yea, the heavens are simply being revealed. The sun, moon and stars would have been visible but the actual seasons, days, months were not really ordered on the third day. The trees and grass etc. are created but as the creation is being fine tuned the times and seasons are more clearly defined.

Is it possible that the creation of the universe around us that God referrenced was merely our galaxy? Possibly. It's entirely possible that other galaxies are other creations. Nothing precludes this, and there are hints at "worlds without end." All of this only points to the magesty of God and has no particular bearing on our lives. Regardless, what we DO know is that God revealed the manner in which He created the universe to man. Whether we believe Him or continue to indulge scientifically unsound theories to buoy our denial is up to us.

If the earth was already created at the beginning of creation week then it stands to reason the rest of the cosmos, including our galaxy was already formed and functional. Creation week is about the creation of life, of preparing the earth for life and the forming of life.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[elopez]

What is your stand on the incarnation? Do you believe that God became man and dwelt among us, that in him was life and that life was the light of men?

Newsflash! Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the cosmos or the planet, sun or stars. Genesis 1 is about the creation of life on this planet This is affirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament which brings me to an actual point.

How can you deny creation without denying the incarnation?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I can understand how the Son is significant in creation, but it wasn't at that point yet that the Son became incarnate, so for me I don't think the incarnation is relevant to creation. That isn't to say that I disbelieve in the incarnation as I very much affirm it.

I am also a little confused by some of your statements. First you say that Genesis is describing God creating the heavens and earth. You then say that Genesis is not about the creation of the cosmos or the planet. So, which is it? It seems that the two statements are contradictory.

So as you should be able to see, I am not denying the incarnation, nor creation, just the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old and that creation took a week. That is the only thing I am denying, and instead affirming evolution.

 

[theFijian]

So as you should be able to see, I am not denying the incarnation, nor creation, just the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old and that creation took a week. That is the only thing I am denying, and instead affirming evolution.

QFT

 

[mark kennedy]

I can understand how the Son is significant in creation, but it wasn't at that point yet that the Son became incarnate, so for me I don't think the incarnation is relevant to creation. That isn't to say that I disbelieve in the incarnation as I very much affirm it.

Creation is inextricably linked to the incarnation, just read the opening lines of the Nicene Creed.

I am also a little confused by some of your statements. First you say that Genesis is describing God creating the heavens and earth. You then say that Genesis is not about the creation of the cosmos or the planet. So, which is it? It seems that the two statements are contradictory.

One verse in Genesis 1 describes the creation of the Cosmos, that's it. The rest of the chapter is about the earth being prepared for life and life being created. Then chapter 2 is devoted to an expansion on the creation of man. The Flood, the tower of Bable are mentioned but most of the book is devoted to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel) and Joseph starting about chapter 12. Like any good exposition what is said has to be taken in context.

So as you should be able to see, I am not denying the incarnation, nor creation, just the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old and that creation took a week. That is the only thing I am denying, and instead affirming evolution.

If that's all there is to it, go in peace I have no problem with you. However, the issue of the sin of Adam makes it's way into the New Testament (Romans 5, I Corinthians 15) right at the heart of the exposition of the Gospel by Paul. If you came under conviction regarding sin, righteousness and judgment through the power of the Holy Spirit, experienced new birth (John 3:3, 16; Titus 3:5-10; Eph 1:13,14; Acts 10:44) you have no need of me to teach you, you now have the Holy Spirit to guide you. For me the incarnation was the hard part, the creation was never really an issue.

I don't know what to tell you about the genealogies, if you never get past the first five chapters of Genesis your wasting your time. I can tell you exactly how Genesis reads and then after that you either believe or you don't. It just seems a bit odd that there is a community of Christians who's whole occupation is nothing more the opposing a literal interpretation of a text that has always been understood as part of an historical narrative.

In short, I don't care what you don't believe, it's meaningless. I would very much like to know what you do believe and what you make of redemptive history as reported by the prophets, priest and apostles who were eye witnesses to the wonderful works of God that resulted in your salvation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So as you should be able to see, I am not denying the incarnation, nor creation, just the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old and that creation took a week. That is the only thing I am denying, and instead affirming evolution.

QFT

Your denying the explicit statements of Moses, in a revelation from the Creator. Affirming 'evolution' as you are using the term is to make an a priori assumption that categorically rejects God's miraculous activity throughout history. When Darwinians hear a Christian affirm a miracle they immediately think Creationist and you are left with two choices. One, be branded a Creationist, two refuse to acknowledge God's activity in history all the way back to the Big Bang.

There are two definitions for evolution, one scientific and one metaphysical I thought you knew that. I thought by now you realized that they have never been able to get past the expression, 'In the beginning God...', because they simply insert natural law where Moses wrote God and never consider the rest of the Bible as more then poetic ramblings.

Grace and peace,
Mark