Progressive's view on creation?

[DrStupid_Ben]

I am non-denominational, but most of my family are SDA and I went there as a kid, so consider this a fellowship post.
It is very refreshing to see several in this thread that are not afraid to interpret scriptures for what they say.
I've tried to do extensive study on this foundational issue, and I have come to the following conclusion of what scripture is saying:

1. Genesis 1:1-2 is talking about THE heaven (universe) and THE earth (planet covered in water). These things are of an unknowable age.
2. The "Creation Week" starts with God's light in Gen. 1:3 and proceeds for a total of six 24 hour days. During this time, the earth is molded to provide land masses above the water, the atmosphere was established, the sun and moon "set" into place and all the biology was created. By genealogy, we can establish this event to about 6,120 years ago.
3. The YEC group will point to Gen. 1:16 as when the stars were created, but most English translations have added words here. God made the lesser light (moon) to rule the night, with stars.
4. The YEC group will quote Exodus 20:11 as saying everything in the whole universe was created 6,000 years ago. Words have been added here too. It actually says "For six days the LORD made (fashioned, worked on)" the things in Genesis 1. All in reference to a work week and not in any way to add another narrative to the creation event. The text does NOT say "For in six days".

This creation model could have other names, but I call it 'YBC' for Young Biological Creation. A full narrative is at:
http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

This idea is used by a growing number of Adventists, and is sometimes known as a "two creation model". (a somewhat unknowable cosmological age with a barren earth, and God fasioning life on Earth near 6000 years ago)

I have a number of disputes with it myself, however I do respect many who believe it.

 

[keyarch]

This idea is used by a growing number of Adventists, and is sometimes known as a "two creation model". (a somewhat unknowable cosmological age with a barren earth, and God fasioning life on Earth near 6000 years ago)

I have a number of disputes with it myself, however I do respect many who believe it.

Since I would not be allowed to debate here, I would welcome any PM on the subject. Thanks for the name of the model. I hadn't heard it that way before, but the definition you gave fits with what I've been calling "Young Biological Creation".

It seems like many would confuse the term "two creation" as meaning Genesis 1 as one event and Genesis 2 as another. For that reason, I would probably not want to use it.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Since I would not be allowed to debate here, I would welcome any PM on the subject. Thanks for the name of the model. I hadn't heard it that way before, but the definition you gave fits with what I've been calling "Young Biological Creation".

It seems like many would confuse the term "two creation" as meaning Genesis 1 as one event and Genesis 2 as another. For that reason, I would probably not want to use it.

Yeah I agree that it is confusing. The first creation would be the universe (including the earth?) and the second would be the creation of life and formation of the land and water etc.

 

[keyarch]

Yeah I agree that it is confusing. The first creation would be the universe (including the earth?) and the second would be the creation of life and formation of the land and water etc.

Just to make sure you understand, I was saying that the terminology was confusing, not the model. I would be very interested in reading more information on this "two creation model" and who supports it (especially any SDA sources). I did a quick internet search, and all I could pull up were arguments regarding Gen.1 & 2 like I was saying it sounded like.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Just to make sure you understand, I was saying that the terminology was confusing, not the model. I would be very interested in reading more information on this "two creation model" and who supports it (especially any SDA sources). I did a quick internet search, and all I could pull up were arguments regarding Gen.1 & 2 like I was saying it sounded like.

Ok, I'm with you.

I have just realised that the "two creation model" is also called the "two-stage creation model"
They are the same, just with different name.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I did not know it had a specific model name but I think you are referring to the idea that the earth as a mass was created sometime before the creation of Genesis. The reason they do this is because of the age of rocks and because then they can say that the stars and the rest of the universe are as old as they appear to be scientifically.

This is why I think the writer and editor of the lesson study recently on Genesis says of creation day 4 that they don't understand what it is referring to and they will have to ask God when they get to heaven. Which is quite a huge statement against the literal view of Genesis 6 days of creation in my opinion. But rather then give up on the 6 days they assign the creation of the universe and stars and mass of the earth to something that occurred in Genesis first verse. As you say a two creation model.

It does not really help them out since it does not help them see the literalness of the creation of light or the creation of stars. But it helps explain how we can see light from stars which would not possible arrive here yet if a young earth creation is accepted.

The two creation model also fits the traditionalist tendency of inserting additional information into the Genesis stories. Having gotten away with doing that for years it is not that hard to do it again just insert material into a different verse. Interestingly it is the same verse that the Gap theorist also use with their 2 creation model, the first being the creation of Satan's earth which had those nasty dinosaurs and then God created the earth of Genesis.

Literalism in Genesis really leads to a lot of speculation.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

As I said, I have my problems with it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

two statged creation summry is what.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

two statged creation summry is what.

God created everything (the entire universe, including the earth) as described in Gen 1:1. Then at some time God specifically created and shaped life on earth in the 6 days of Gen 1:2f (most who hold this view will agree on close to 6000 years ago). It allows for a universe dated at roughly 13 billion years, and observing stars many millions of light years away. It also helps to clarify an old geological time frame. It is not that different from a YEC interpretation, the only differences are really with day 1 and day 4.

hence the name (two creation, or two-stage creation)
an original creation of the universe, then a further creation of life, seperated by a period of time

 

[keyarch]

God created everything (the entire universe, including the earth) as described in Gen 1:1. Then at some time God specifically created and shaped life on earth in the 6 days of Gen 1:2f (most who hold this view will agree on close to 6000 years ago). It allows for a universe dated at roughly 13 billion years, and observing stars many millions of light years away. It also helps to clarify an old geological time frame. It is not that different from a YEC interpretation, the only differences are really with day 1 and day 4.

hence the name (two creation, or two-stage creation)
an original creation of the universe, then a further creation of life, seperated by a period of time

This is a quote from a paper I found done by Jim Gibson of the Geoscience Research Institute (The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church):

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]"4. How can creationists explain radiometric dates of many millions of years?[/FONT]​

Creationists do not have an adequate explanation. Some possibilities have been proposed, but they are not compelling because they do not explain why the lower layers generally give older dates than the upper layers. The first possibility is that the rocks of the earth are very old because the planet was created long before life was placed on it. This theory proposes that Genesis refers only to the creation of life on the planet, and not to the creation of the planet itself. This can be called the two-stage creation hypothesis."

You mentioned you have some problems with the "two-stage" creation interpretation, and I still don't know what they are. I have been arguing for this model (under the name of Young Biological Creation - YBC) for some years now, and still have not come across any Scripture that would nullify it, but rather many that support it. I am REALLY interested to hear any legitimate problem, as I am only interested in TRUTH.​

Also, someone please let me know if my posting here is inappropriate.​

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You mentioned you have some problems with the "two-stage" creation interpretation, and I still don't know what they are. I have been arguing for this model (under the name of Young Biological Creation - YBC) for some years now, and still have not come across any Scripture that would nullify it, but rather many that support it.

It seems to me that it is the very first chapter of Genesis if taken literally that goes against the 2 stage creation. As the lesson study guide last quarter said they did not know what the meaning of the 4th day of creation was, they would have to wait and ask once they were in heaven. You may have another answer for that problem though that they or I have never thought of.

The 2 stage creation model as I think the Lesson quarterly alluded to holds that the creation of the universe with all it stars and planets occurred before the creation of life on earth in the 6 days of creation. So they have to say that if that is the case they don't understand the meaning of the 4th day of creation. It seems to be the biggest problem with the 2 stage concept.

 

[keyarch]

It seems to me that it is the very first chapter of Genesis if taken literally that goes against the 2 stage creation. As the lesson study guide last quarter said they did not know what the meaning of the 4th day of creation was, they would have to wait and ask once they were in heaven. You may have another answer for that problem though that they or I have never thought of.

The 2 stage creation model as I think the Lesson quarterly alluded to holds that the creation of the universe with all it stars and planets occurred before the creation of life on earth in the 6 days of creation. So they have to say that if that is the case they don't understand the meaning of the 4th day of creation. It seems to be the biggest problem with the 2 stage concept.

The meaning of the fourth day is to make (fashion) TWO lights (the sun and the moon) for the very purposes that are underlined by me in the passages (all of which are attributes of the sun and moon):

KJV - Genesis 1:14-19 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.

Notice that the "he made" is in italics? The stars were already there and visible as subordinate light to the moon which ruled the night. There is no wording in the Hebrew in these passages that says anything to the effect that stars (or the upper heaven for that matter) were created on this day.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well it seems your view is based upon the assumption that the "He made" is relating to something before the "Let" which begins the whole day in most of the creation days. That really goes against a literal view of the creation story. But it would certainly allow you to say that everything preexisted the creation story and the let is just an organization or reorganization. Human beings animals stars plants anything. But again it would not be a literal interpretation which would be in the form of this was created then this was created etc.

The meaning of the fourth day is to make (fashion) TWO lights (the sun and the moon) for the very purposes that are underlined by me in the passages (all of which are attributes of the sun and moon):

To "make", in the story is to create that is what the whole chapter is about. you have merely assumed a creation before the actual mention of the creation in the verse. All those things you underlined are of no use until man exists. Time is something that has meaning to man as do seasons. Days on the other hand were actually determined by the light in the first day of creation.

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Though of course no one has any idea what that light was. All those things you underlined are elements man has placed in the moon and stars they did not take any additional acts of God to make them marks for seasons etc. this is one of the reasons the literal view does not work well as the days serve to point out the condition of the world rather then how it was made. We learned to use those things for seasons and signs, the reader sees all the plants, sees all the animals. It does not say that the plants are used for food for the animals because that is something we can see also. It takes study to determine the signs and seasons derived from the stars or the phases of the moon. Of course the moon is far more important for the earth then for lighting up the night sky but they did not know the tremendous functions of the moon or how it position and distance are essential for earth. The story is written to tell us that all that we see is the product of God though the why and the how it was created are not discussed.

There is no wording in the Hebrew in these passages that says anything to the effect that stars (or the upper heaven for that matter) were created on this day.

I just put this quote in to show that you are not at all being literal in your view anymore. You probably want to think that the other days had the literal things created on those days, yet here using the same formula as the other days you assert that it does not say they were made on the day that they said they were made.

 

[keyarch]

Well it seems your view is based upon the assumption that the "He made" is relating to something before the "Let" which begins the whole day in most of the creation days.

I just put this quote in to show that you are not at all being literal in your view anymore. You probably want to think that the other days had the literal things created on those days, yet here using the same formula as the other days you assert that it does not say they were made on the day that they said they were made.

I want to make it clear, that I take all of the creation account literal. I'm not sure you understand my comments (as I'm having a hard time with yours).
So that it's clear what I'm saying, I'll state it again.
1. The referenced lights being "made" and "set" are the sun and the moon - the TWO lights.
2. The KJV added the words "he made" to the end of Genesis 1:16. The Hebrew says (also or with) stars. In other words, man looks up in the night to the moon ruling the night, with stars. So there is nothing that says "He made the stars also" (except a translation).
3. Except for Genesis 1:1, the whole creation account is describing conditions, new biology and the work that God did during the six days relating to our world and immediate solar system.

The YEC model would have us believe that God did not create any "matter" in the whole universe (including the space itself) for an unfathomable amount of time, and then all of the sudden (6,000 years ago) started all creation with this blob of water and energy; then out of that made the land masses etc.; then plants - all taking three days. Then in ONE DAY He goes and creates the dimensions of space and ALL of the stars and galaxies of the whole universe; then comes back and finishes the fish, birds and land animals for another two days; then stops creating.

So all the beautiful created plants and animals were an expression of three days work, nothing before or after in all of eternity (except the homes He's making for us in heaven). I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense, and I don't see that in scripture.
I rather think that God has been creating things in the universe all along, and that earth and it's life was a crowning glory.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

2. The KJV added the words "he made" to the end of Genesis 1:16. The Hebrew says (also or with) stars. In other words, man looks up in the night to the moon ruling the night, with stars. So there is nothing that says "He made the stars also" (except a translation).

I understood your point, It just does not have any justification. The assumption that the KJV inserts the meaning of "He made" does not mean that the meaning is not there in the Hebrew. In fact the majority of English Translation have very similar words. So you really can't say that your knowledge of Hebrew is so much better then the 1000's of Bible translators. Even if you were an expert in Hebrew yours would simply be a minority view. I am sure you realize that you can't simply convey from one language to another a word for word meaning as word order etc. does not necessarily work between different languages.

Here is a list of numerous translation of Gen 1:16 to show how the meaning is overwhelming there as "He made". Though even if you did not take the meaning as "He made" as such Bibles as the [SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0]Douay-Rheims does "And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars." It would not support a contention that the Stars were made sometime in the past before the creation of Chapter 1 it would either be that the greater and lesser lights were brighter then the stars. You could say that they were already created but you would have nothing to say that they were already created. And you could argue just as easily that they were created at the same time as the lights that ruled over them were. A literal interpretation would not be arguing for something to have happened that is no where recorded to have happened. To be literal you have to have the words expressing what happened rather then speculating what happened.

the texts:
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-0] (NKJV) Genesis 1:16 Then 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. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0] (
NASB) Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](KJV) Genesis 1:16 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. {to rule the day...: Heb. for the rule of the day, etc.} [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0]
(CEV) Genesis 1:16 God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](TEV) Genesis 1:16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0]
(RSV) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](BBE) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](GodsWord) Genesis 1:16 God made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](ASV) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](Darby) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, --and the stars.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](Young) Genesis 1:16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary--and the stars--for the rule of the night; [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](MKJV (Green)) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-0](LITV (Green)) Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary and the stars to rule the night. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0](
Douay-Rheims) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars.[/SIZE]

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

started all creation with this blob of water

I think the first verses of Genesis about water are pretty good evidence for the non literal view of the creation story. Of course even if the story is inspired by God to whomever wrote it down and there was no sun, assuming it was not present until as you say fashioned on the 4th day. The surface would not appear to be water at all. It would not appear to anyone as "the deep" because it would be as solid an ice as we could comprehend being the temperature of space which is as I recall is a little above absolute zero -273 celsius. But the story knows nothing of huge expanses of frozen water, They had not traveled to glaciers or the arctic or antarctic they wrote from their knowledge base. However our knowledge base is much larger. So our methods of interpretation also must be larger.

 

[keyarch]

I think the first verses of Genesis about water are pretty good evidence for the non literal view of the creation story. Of course even if the story is inspired by God to whomever wrote it down and there was no sun, assuming it was not present until as you say fashioned on the 4th day. The surface would not appear to be water at all. It would not appear to anyone as "the deep" because it would be as solid an ice as we could comprehend being the temperature of space which is as I recall is a little above absolute zero -273 celsius. But the story knows nothing of huge expanses of frozen water, They had not traveled to glaciers or the arctic or antarctic they wrote from their knowledge base. However our knowledge base is much larger. So our methods of interpretation also must be larger.

1. Actually, scripture tells us that there was a thick clould layer covering the deep.

Job 38:9 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

That cloud layer could have had the right chemical makeup and been just the right insulation.
2. The earth produces heat from within.
3. Large bodies of water can be very cold before freezing. "Water can remain a liquid even below its freezing point, up to -25°C"
4. The "deep" can still be the "deep" even if a top layer is frozen. The Spirit was moving upon the face of the waters before the creation week. Maybe He was warming things up a little.

All this to say that the earth could have existed as a planet covered with water and cloud covering (no atmosphere as we know it) for a long amount of time before the creation week, without just being a frozen mass.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

The YEC model would have us believe that God did not create any "matter" in the whole universe (including the space itself) for an unfathomable amount of time, and then all of the sudden (6,000 years ago) started all creation with this blob of water and energy; then out of that made the land masses etc.; then plants - all taking three days. Then in ONE DAY He goes and creates the dimensions of space and ALL of the stars and galaxies of the whole universe; then comes back and finishes the fish, birds and land animals for another two days; then stops creating.

This is problematic. Space itself is related to time. Matter cannot exist outside of time. The idea that God was sitting around for an "unfathomable amount of time" before creating the first matter, is illogical. Taking this further, there cannot be a universe without matter, as there is no such thing as empty space. Space itself is a property, it is not nothing.
God must be understood as being independant from time-space, otherwise, how could he pre-exist a universe.


Sorry if this sounds like I am attacking your ideas, (it probably does) but I am not. Just raising a point on the view of YEC you described.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

All this to say that the earth could have existed as a planet covered with water and cloud covering (no atmosphere as we know it) for a long amount of time before the creation week, without just being a frozen mass.

Seems to me your whole theory is blown by your last line. Clouds by definition require an atmosphere.

 

[keyarch]

Seems to me your whole theory is blown by your last line. Clouds by definition require an atmosphere.

I mentioned "atmosphere as we know it". I'm saying that the "cloud" layer was some kind of "waters" that were not liquid like the "deep" and that it was until:

Genesis 1:6-7 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

I'm not a scientist, so I don't know all the possibilities of chemical compositions that could remain in a cloud form with water directly under it.