Science (observations in nature) - supports creation not evolution. So does the Bible

[Aaron112]

I don't think it is right to say that certain words are "hated by God" because scholars use them.

Because other people use them also, and they are harmful and misleading, away from Jesus. There are actually many such words God hates, but the forum does not want them revealed.

 

[David Lamb]

I do not know the extent of your paleo-Hebrew language skills; I am not a Hebrew scholar. However, others who know more than I have commented on the verb conjugation in that sentence in Exodus and suggest that a closer rendering is "I will be who I will be." So unless you can provide a more ample description of the Hebrew grammar involved, this question remains unresolved. Despite that, the content of the statement is that of a simple tautology. As baseball players who lost say in interviews,"It is what it is." What does that mean? They have nothing more to say about the matter. And Yahweh had nothing more to say to Israel about his ontological nature.

As for the "grandfather" comment, I am not sure that you understood my point behind it. I am not calling Jesus "the grandson of God" but am suggesting that there is more to God than we have been told or probably even imagine. This relates back to the question of Genesis 1:1 and the scope of the Creation. A possibility is that shamayim and eretz in Gen. 1:1 is not intended to fit the modern cosmological model of the universe that is widely read back into Gen. 1:1. Perhaps the scope of the creation as intended by Genesis 1:1 is our galaxy, or our sector of the galaxy, or the solar system. These are possibilities but no further description is given that would allow us to determine more exactly the scope of Creation.

Like you, I am not a Hebrew scholar; I have to rely on lexicons and commentaries. I am sorry I seem to have misunderstood your "grandfather" point, but it certainly seemed as though you were allowing for the possibility that Jesus is the Grandson of God rather than the Son. I can't agree that "the scope of the creation as intended by Genesis 1:1 is our galaxy, or our sector of the galaxy, or the solar system," because there are plenty of places in the bible where we are told that God created all things. Even in Genesis 1, we are told that He created the stars, not just some of the stars.

 

[DennisF]

Like you, I am not a Hebrew scholar; I have to rely on lexicons and commentaries. I am sorry I seem to have misunderstood your "grandfather" point, but it certainly seemed as though you were allowing for the possibility that Jesus is the Grandson of God rather than the Son. I can't agree that "the scope of the creation as intended by Genesis 1:1 is our galaxy, or our sector of the galaxy, or the solar system," because there are plenty of places in the bible where we are told that God created all things. Even in Genesis 1, we are told that He created the stars, not just some of the stars.

That is a good point in favor of considering that everything we know that exists was created by God, and I do not disagree with this. The conjecture I am raising is that Gen. 1:1 does not say that as such and leaves open the possibility that there is more to the Creation account, that this one in Genesis is not the last word on Creation. The Genesis account concludes (Gen. 2:4) that it is Yahweh who is the one behind this Creation project. (Whether the elohim in Gen. 1:1 is correctly translated "God" or as the "gods" working under Yahweh is another topic.) Is Yahweh "the Father" Jesus refers to? Possibly, but this is not made completely clear in scripture, so far as my knowledge goes. The kenosis of Jesus in the incarnation was applied to the pre-incarnate Son of God, but where does Yahweh fit in? Is it true that Jesus is the human incarnation of Yahweh? This makes the Son the Creator in Genesis. Some scripture seems to affirm that. This leads us into the abyss of trying to dissect God in how we try to relate the triune persons of God. I find this murky territory, but maybe you have figured it out better than I have.

 

[BeyondET]

This leads us into the abyss of trying to dissect God in how we try to relate the triune persons of God. I find this murky territory, but maybe you have figured it out better than I have.

Not to an octopus with it's triune hearts.

 

[DennisF]

Hi Dennis
Thank you for your post you said

usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

I agree so tmhere has to be a better interpretation I suggest the forth day is 4000 years after Noah the sun is Jesus Christ the light of the world the moon the bride of Christ the reflected light of the sun the stars the children of God created by Christ and his bride.
The creation account should be read starting when Noah stepped of the ark and God began a new creation the end result man in the image of God.

Love and Peace
Dave

Okay, so make your case. As such, it is unsupported. Please fill it in.

 

[Aaron112]

Possibly, but this is not made completely clear in scripture, so far as my knowledge goes. The kenosis of Jesus in the incarnation was applied to the pre-incarnate Son of God, but where does Yahweh fit in? Is it true that Jesus is the human incarnation of Yahweh? This makes the Son the Creator in Genesis. Some scripture seems to affirm that. This leads us into the abyss of trying to dissect God in how we try to relate the triune persons of God. I find this murky territory, but maybe you have figured it out better than I have.

Simple. Easy-peasy. Not complicated.

except for religion , men, who added tradition that is opposed to simple.

 

[BobRyan]

Like you, I am not a Hebrew scholar; I have to rely on lexicons and commentaries. I am sorry I seem to have misunderstood your "grandfather" point, but it certainly seemed as though you were allowing for the possibility that Jesus is the Grandson of God rather than the Son. I can't agree that "the scope of the creation as intended by Genesis 1:1 is our galaxy, or our sector of the galaxy, or the solar system," because there are plenty of places in the bible where we are told that God created all things. Even in Genesis 1, we are told that He created the stars, not just some of the stars.

Gen 1:1 - God created everything
But in Gen 1:2-end we have "and God said" for each of the ordinal days of creation week and only the Earth - (and its sun and moon) are being affected/created/formed.

On day 1 - the Earth is there already, the water is there already. There is no "let there be rocks". There is no "and God said - let there be water"
On day 4 - "TWO great lights" are created not a zillion-and-two

So as you point out - the creation account is just for our planet and its sun - and moon. Our planet is formatted for life then all forms of life are created directly by God.

 

[BobRyan]

The kenosis of Jesus in the incarnation was applied to the pre-incarnate Son of God, but where does Yahweh fit in? Is it true that Jesus is the human incarnation of Yahweh? This makes the Son the Creator in Genesis. Some scripture seems to affirm that.

In the Bible - the YHWH term is applied to the Father and to the Son - and Holy Spirit

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Dennis
Thank you for your post you said

usual interpretation of the fourth day simply does not fit.

I agree so tmhere has to be a better interpretation I suggest the forth day is 4000 years after Noah the sun is Jesus Christ the light of the world the moon the bride of Christ

Clearly the newly freed slaves at Sinai (newly freed from Egyptian slavery) were not about to take Moses' text at Sinai and read all those mental gymnastics into it.

They were more likely to simple accept the text as it reads.