St. Augustine and Creation

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Good?

Yet I believed Scripture without ever believing it because it was tradition, but rather as the Father in heaven revealed it to me, as also He did to and for the Apostles and permanent disciples throughout all Scripture.
It has traditionally been believed and espoused that Jesus was the Son of God. I agree with that because it is in line with the Scriptures.
========================================================

Good. Perfect? . True !
It has traditionally been believed that the communion emblems actually become the blood and body of the living Lord. I disagree with that because I don't find it supported by the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I only got this far... to quote. reading.

Nothing in Yahweh's Way, Plan, Purpose, or Word ever led me to compare any false teaching while seeking the truth, no , not ever.
I believe it is sinful to "weigh" anything from the enemy as if it might be true, or to seek from those opposed to Jesus any help at all, ever.

Hi JSJ,

Well, that's certainly ok with me, but to defend the word of God in a world of unbelievers, I find it good to at least be familiar with what the unbeliever may believe about God's word. The Scriptures tell us that we should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have. For me, that preparation means to have some idea of what kinds of opposing ideas might come up.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As per previous post, it looks like you got it - what tradition teaches is not always what is in Scripture.

Hi YSJ,

Oh yes, and this is exactly what I mean by weighing. I hear the 'traditional' teachings, but then I weigh them against the truth of God. I believe that's what Paul referred to as a good thing that the Bereans did. However, that's pretty much dealing with the 'church'. When dealing with the lost world, then one must know what their 'traditional' beliefs are in order to be prepared to give a reason for our hope.

I believe that most apologetics writers are familiar with the claims that are being made and have looked into them in order to provide a reasonable argument against them. Otherwise, the simple response that 'you don't understand' becomes the normal defense against your explanations. "So says the word of the Lord..." isn't usually a sufficient defense for those who don't believe or agree that the Lord speaks at all.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟326,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi jamsie,

For the record, I believe that I have taken a 'critical look' at Genesis 1. I have studied it quite at length. I think our difference lies in what we will accept as the support of the facts laid out for us in Genesis 1. You want science to support what you find written and I accept God as the support for what is written.

God bless,
In Crhist, ted

Then I would only ask how you interpret the fact that God spoke mediate and agency into his fiats? Since God did not say, as he could have, "Let there be living creatures..." but rather "Let the land produce/bring forth..." does not that cause some critical thought?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then I would only ask how you interpret the fact that God spoke mediate and agency into his fiats? Since God did not say, as he could have, "Let there be living creatures..." but rather "Let the land produce/bring forth..." does not that cause some critical thought?

Hi jamsie,

Well, perhaps you need to provide your working definition for 'critical thought'.

Yes, one could read your quote of the Scriptures without any context or study of all that the Scriptures say concerning the creation event, and may likely have some questions about 'how' exactly' all of that happened. You've actually just taken parts of sentences and decided to stop there and say to yourself, and I suppose since we're discussing on this forum, to me, "See!! God's word is not clear at all on the subject!"

However, God does provide a bit more information on the subject than just your singular sentence parts, that addresses such questions.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind."

Unlike your method of study where one picks out a word here and a piece of a sentence there and then sits back and says, "Gosh! What could that possibly mean?" I think that the critical thought approach is to say to oneself, "Well, let me look at all that God says on the subject and see if I can gain further understanding."

Here we read that God spoke a command. The result of that command is then explained that God created.

God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Then after the explanation that God commanded and created, we find that then God gave a command to those that He created to now go forth and reproduce and multiply. We then find a reasonably similar construct as regards the land animals.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Finally, we come to God's explanation to His people of the time it took for Him to create all that exists in this realm.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Here, I believe God provides the answer to all of those questions regarding how long it took God to create this realm in which we live. His claim seems fairly clear that in six days He made both the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them. Now, everything that is in them would include all of the heavenly bodies such as planets and stars and asteroids and such in the heavens. It would also include everything that is upon the earth. All trees, bushes, grass, animals and other living creatures. He created them each as a 'kind', and then as this created realm endures, they were to 'go forth and multiply' still remaining within their kind. How do we know what a 'kind' is, well, according to God's command, any creatures that naturally reproduce with one another, would be a 'kind'.

As I've often said before, I find that God has provided reasonable answers for our questions on this subject of the created realm that He made for man to live in. We live in a created realm, and according to the Scriptures, there will come a day when the one who created this realm will come back and draw it all to a close. It didn't take billions of years for space dust to coalesce from some pinpoint of energy that was more powerful than any energy force that man has ever known, that just exploded into the dark inky blackness of space. Not at all, according to the Scriptures.

According to the law, God created all that is in this realm in six days. On the sixth of those days, He created the first man, Adam. Then God gave a reasonably clear genealogical timeline of the sons born to a specific line of fathers. All of that, leads us to a creation that is likely only about 6,000 years old, despite what the wisdom of such wise and studied scientists might try to tell us they have proven just can't possibly be true. As I've also said before, when some scientific study can tell me and show me how a huge body of water can part through the middle, and the water stand as a sentinel unaided on both the right and left hand as a wall, then I'll consider that science may know what they're talking about. Until then, I know that the explanation of this realm of creation is just as inexplicable to them as that body of water that divided into a chasm with walls of water standing on both sides.

Now, please don't misunderstand and think that means that I don't believe in or trust science. I absolutely trust science to tell me how things operate in the here and now. Where I have doubts as to the reliability of science, is when they try to tell me that something that God has told me can't be true. None of those wonderfully bright and wise people were there. The best they can do, in explaining such things in the distant past, is to extrapolate what they see today and claim that there proof would have always and forever been the same. That isn't true, if the account of the parting of the sea is a factual account. They can study water forever and ever and a day, and they will not be able to tell me how the account of the parting of the sea could have happened as it is described. Even though there are seas all over the face of the globe, they cannot duplicate or explain to me how that event happened.

Science cannot explain to me how a shadow cast by the sun can go backwards the distance of ten steps. These are both much simpler events than the creation of the entire realm of existence, but they can't tell me how it was done. If they can't give me provable explanations of these things that we see and have around us on the earth to work with every single day, why would I believe that they've actually found the truth as to how everything that is, got here? All they have done is to look at the natural operation of the creation today and then, by making the claim that such things must always and forever have been the same, try to convince me that this is how it all happened. Failing to even acknowledge that when God takes physical control of the things in this realm of His creating, all bets as to what happens naturally are off. Just tell me how that water stood all by itself as a wall on both sides of the Israelites as they passed through the chasm of the sea. Answer that simple one, and then we'll discuss the harder ones.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟326,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, one could read your quote of the Scriptures without any context or study of all that the Scriptures say concerning the creation event, and may likely have some questions about 'how' exactly' all of that happened. You've actually just taken parts of sentences and decided to stop there and say to yourself, and I suppose since we're discussing on this forum, to me, "See!! God's word is not clear at all on the subject!"

As I noted in post #30 - I am not taking parts:
"A plain reading of Genesis is that the only and primary distinction of each day is clearly God's commands/fiats. The commands were the sole operative agent of creation. (Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5) On each day it is that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. That is the clear activity of each day.

It is clear that God's commands/fiats involved mediate creation and agency not immediacy. Following "Let there be light, and there was light." we find commands such as "Let the land", "Let the water". etc. directed at created matter to bring forth or produce, no immediacy mentioned.

There is much more but circumstance is such that I can only offer this last thought for now. The structure of Genesis 1 is interesting as one will note fiat "And God said"), fulfillment ("And it was so" - God's efficacious will), parenthetical/post fulfillment, and day. I did not cherry pick words or take parts...


You wrote: However, God does provide a bit more information on the subject than just your singular sentence parts, that addresses such questions.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”


Did you notice that God directed his command at the land/earth to produce?

You wrote: And it was so.

What was so? To me his commands directed to land and water were ..that is what the passage states as so!

You wrote: God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

How did he make? It seems clear that as the passage plainly states "Let the land produce...", that is clearly mediate agency. If as we know the commands/fiats were sufficient and the sole operative then "God made..." is parenthetical. How did he make the wild animals, etc. he commanded the land to produce, and that is what the scripture states.

Finally, we come to God's explanation to His people of the time it took for Him to create all that exists in this realm.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Here, I believe God provides the answer to all of those questions regarding how long it took God to create this realm in which we live. His claim seems fairly clear that in six days He made both the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them.

According to the law, God created all that is in this realm in six days. On the sixth of those days, He created the first man, Adam.

However, you assume 6 consecutive days when that is not stated...it does not in scripture say anywhere the "creation week". It is quite reasonable that one factor in the importance of the clearly defined agency of God's commands. So Gen. 1:27 creation of "male and female", then 2:15 God put man in the garden to "work and care", compare Gen. 1:31 to Ge. 2:18. Gen.2:19 naming of the animals, the Gen. 2:22 has Eve, and Adam uses the word "pa‛ămâh" which hints at "at last" or "now" which one would infer a passage of time. Would there not be some passage of time for Adam to work and care for the plants, etc. if not why would he need a `ezer - helper? Would it be a "stretch" to believe that Adam must have had some interaction with the variety of animals, birds, etc. in order to name them, if they were named meaningfully ...and would not that require time? So given the mediate nature of creation how is equating days to commands so far fetched...the Bible is quite clear that each day (5 days) is a command day that involves process.

Failing to even acknowledge that when God takes physical control of the things in this realm of His creating, all bets as to what happens naturally are off. Just tell me how that water stood all by itself as a wall on both sides of the Israelites as they passed through the chasm of the sea. Answer that simple one, and then we'll discuss the harder ones.

Where did I deny God's omnipotence? As you say "when God takes physical control of the things in this realm of His creating, all bets as to what happens naturally are off." As with many instances in scripture, such as the preceding plagues, God used agency...Moses "raise your staff and stretch out you hand...". God's interventions do not negate a clear reading of Genesis 1.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you believe that it is impossible for a person to be saved if they do believe that we have free will, and are cursed, that Jesus was God incarnate, died on the Cross and was resurrected (as recorded in the Gospels) thereby we are not doomed by the curse, but they do not believe that Genesis is a scientifically or historically accurate in its depiction?

If i understand the compound question properly sister, you're asking whether i believe a plain literal reading of Gen 1 creation story is a salvation issue.

Trust in God is the number 1 personal salvation/ sanctification issue. Easy to trust Him when ppl won't laugh at you for it. But if we have to find cunning ways to avoid the simplest and most straightforward of teachings, what then? If i speak of earthly things and ye do not believe...

Still, God wills that all come to a knowledge of the truth. So it will happen. The sorceries of Babylon meanwhile hold sway. Why? Because ppl still prefer the darkness, put to them as light, by the one disguised as an angel of light. Be not deceived, have faith and use reason. There is no silly spinning spaceball with water and air stuck to it, that is scientifically ludicrous.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi jamsie,

I have read your response. From my previous posts, I think it clear that not only do I not agree with you as far as this being some account of God just making commands and then one day down the road the land/water did something to complete God's command that was directed to them.

You are correct that God's word never specifically says that the six day period was consecutive. Except in the law. The law says that in six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that it is in them. It doesn't say that in six days God gave the set of commands that, through the operational forces of nature, caused to be created by the land and the water all that is in the heavens and the earth.

However, what God's word does say is this:
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Let's look more closely at the order and the time in which God says that it was 'done'. God said, "Let the land produce vegetation". The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. So, God has now commanded that the land produce vegetation and declared to us that the land did what He commanded it to do. Then God saw that it was good and closed out the narrative that thus ended the evening and morning of the third day. So, it would seem, following the order of the narrative, that whether it was God stooping down to create each plant out of the dirt or that the land itself brought forth each plant of the earth, the command seems to have been fulfilled before that day of creation ended or the next day came around.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your understanding of the six days not being consecutive to have some merit. Then we are left to believe that on one day God created the earth. Then, what, a billion years later there came a day that God created the seas and divided the land? Then another day another billion years later God created the sun and moon and stars in the heavens? Then another billion years later God gave commands to the dirt and water of the earth to bring forth living creatures and over the next billion or so years it did. For me, the law confirms the six days being the period in which everything was made by God. Everything in both the heavens and the earth was made in six days, by God. And, according to the timeline as it is found in the Scriptures, it didn't take multiple days or years or millennia for God's commands to the land and water to fulfill what God commanded them to do.

Now, it might also be useful to know that biological life contained in animals and man has all the same elementary building blocks as dirt. According to the Scriptures, God fashioned the first man Adam from the dirt/dust of the ground. It's very likely that when God commanded 'let the land produce', that instead of God fashioning the individual animals Himself out of the dirt/dust of the ground, the hundreds of animal and plant species came up out of the dirt/dust of the ground. But in each case, God sees that the land and water have done what He has commanded them to do, and then closes out that day.

Where did I deny God's omnipotence? As you say "when God takes physical control of the things in this realm of His creating, all bets as to what happens naturally are off." As with many instances in scripture, such as the preceding plagues, God used agency...Moses "raise your staff and stretch out you hand...". God's interventions do not negate a clear reading of Genesis 1.

Just to be clear, I didn't say that you did. The subject of that claim was 'they' being those who study the creation using scientific methodology. (You claim to be a scientist, but you haven't yet said that you are of one of the sciences that denies the truth of God's word or not.) That methodology does not account for something that God may have done in the past outside of what we know is naturally done in the creation. For example: It is claimed that the earth must be several billions of years old based primarily, although there are other reasons, that the light of distant stars couldn't be seen if that light is traveling across the universe from its source to the earth at the speed that we have tested and know, that light 'naturally' travels. Science cannot give any nod to some idea that, well, maybe God miraculously stretched that light, or He flung the stars into their places from a starting point near the earth and so we see them, even though they are only about 6,000 years out there. Because all that science can see is that the stars are out there and the light is here and if for all time light has always been studied, light only travels at a given speed. Therefore, either the stars were put out there long before the earth was created, or the earth is so many billions of years old.

As I tried to explain, and you being a man of science, perhaps you could provide some answers in this regard. How did a sea part, for at least a couple of hours for a half a million people to walk across on dry land, and the water that was parted just stand as a sentinel on both the right and left hand of those walking though the chasm? If we use the scientific methodology of all that we know about the properties of water, just as we know some properties of light, that's an impossible feat. I don't think you will find any scientist that won't confirm that it is a natural law of water and is always true, that water seeks level. So, how does a body of water that must be at least several dozen feet deep, part and create a chasm with two walls of water on both sides?

How did a shadow cast by the sun shining down from heaven, go backwards the distance of ten steps? Based on scientific methodology and all that we know about the movement of the heavenly bodies, that's an impossible scenario. So, what do we do? Do we accept that science does provide us the answer for all the natural properties and that they are totally and completely immutable and, therefore, the events, as told, just didn't happen that way? Or, do we take the position that God can do whatever He wants however He wants and if He tells us that He did something then we can trust that He did it. That these events that God describes to us as doing in particular ways is exactly what God was referring to when He made the claim, "I will confound the wisdom of the wise!"

I'm happy to read any evidence that you have for another position than those two, but those are the only two that I can come up with. However, if we choose to take the second position, that when God performs a miracle in this realm that it is outside of any explanation that science can provide, I think we should understand that as far as this realm of His creating, the creation event itself was likely His greatest miracle. Certainly until Jesus was implanted in that Jewish woman's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, as far as the scope and size of all of God's miracles that He tells us about in His account of history, the creation event is,for me, certainly the largest.

For me, and I've learned long ago on this forum that all I can explain is my own understanding of the Scriptures, when we take all of the testimony concerning the creation event, it seems pretty clear that it was in six days and that those days were consecutive to one another. Then God's testimony of the genealogies also makes pretty clear that it hasn't existed for millions and billions of years, but only a few thousand. That God's creating this realm of existence was for the purpose of culling out of all the people that were to come from His command to go forth and multiply and subdue the earth. To cull out what He refers to as His children, those who would trust and believe Him as to who He is and all that He has done, and bring those few, according to Jesus' explanation, into an eternal existence with Him. We live in a created realm that was created by a God who created it all for a purpose. From beginning to end of God's account of both historical and future events that seems to be God's clear purpose. That's my position even after having critically taken under advisement, your understanding.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟40,776.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If i understand the compound question properly sister, you're asking whether i believe a plain literal reading of Gen 1 creation story is a salvation issue.

I was asking if you believe that all who can sincerely say this CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums are saved?

Trust in God is the number 1 personal salvation/ sanctification issue. Easy to trust Him when ppl won't laugh at you for it. But if we have to find cunning ways to avoid the simplest and most straightforward of teachings, what then? If i speak of earthly things and ye do not believe...

I can see possible explanations for non-literal understanding of the Bible which are not in any way "cunning" and are not simply to avoid ridicule.

Still, God wills that all come to a knowledge of the truth. So it will happen. The sorceries of Babylon meanwhile hold sway. Why? Because ppl still prefer the darkness, put to them as light, by the one disguised as an angel of light. Be not deceived, have faith and use reason.

I am very unclear as to what you mean by this.

There is no silly spinning spaceball with water and air stuck to it, that is scientifically ludicrous.

When I see a scientific depiction of such a thing I shall duly doubt it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I was asking if you believe that all who can sincerely say this CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums are saved?

The Nicene Creed is elegant. But the words are nothing without the Spirit, they're just 'dead' empty forms. For example, when we read he will come to judge the living and the dead, is it right to picture the judgment unto damnation? Is that the spirit that gives life? The Cappadochians, who were instrumental in settling the Creed, didn't think so. Today, however, most do, following the Augustinian path.

I can see possible explanations for non-literal understanding of the Bible which are not in any way "cunning" and are not simply to avoid ridicule.

Now you see, that was a little cunning on your part. We were discussing the creation account. Of course its true power is in its heavenly and transcendent message which speaks to us more deeply than we can know, but even if I was to concede that Gen 1 and 2 are purely allegorical, is the HS in the business of drawing imperfect figures of speech?

I am very unclear as to what you mean by this.

My apologies. People prefer to clothe themselves with fantasy than stand naked in truth. Truth is, we're easy prey for the devil's deceptions and temptations when we don't submit to Christ. And that must include accepting the beauty and simplicity of the Bible's earthly teachings over the wisdom of the world falsely so-called, the devil's lying signs and wonders, the sorceries of Babylon. Just let God be true. Praise Him for He resists the proud but reveals the mysteries to little children.

When I see a scientific depiction of such a thing I shall duly doubt it.

Good, have a look at the alleged pictures of earth from space. Biblical cosmology is flat, motionless and enclosed. It may be hard for us to accept, as we've all been heavily indoctrinated, but a little research will reveal that it's true - by tests of both faith and reason. To search for truth without fear or favour is to be drawn to Christ, is it not?
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟326,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have read your response. From my previous posts, I think it clear that not only do I not agree with you as far as this being some account of God just making commands and then one day down the road the land/water did something to complete God's command that was directed to them.

"Just making commands", yet that is exactly what the scriptures I pointed to tell us. This is where our understanding of Genesis departs specifically as to the nature of God's fiats. You believe the commands were insufficient (just commands) and instant whereas I believe the commands involved time just as we see today. I noted that if each days fiats were immediate then why did the structure not follow Genesis 1:3, but the commands changed in direction.
I believe it is quite reasonable to suggest that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The designation of each of the 5 days refers to the fiats, it does not indicate completion other than to acknowledge God's efficacious/predictive will ... why should we doubt "down the road" knowing his command is both the power and completion.


You are correct that God's word never specifically says that the six day period was consecutive. Except in the law. The law says that in six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that it is in them. It doesn't say that in six days God gave the set of commands that, through the operational forces of nature, caused to be created by the land and the water all that is in the heavens and the earth.

However, what God's word does say is this:
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


Again, the law says in six days without any note of consecutive but only the designation of each day, whether (first, second...or one, two) is a reference to his days of commands/fiats. If we don't specifically acknowledge the clear structure of the fiats and look at the content of those fiats we miss the nature of those commands.

As noted God made statements are parenthetical to the command...unless one considers God's fiats insufficient. The question posed is how did God make, and clearly it refers to "And God said..." as he commanded the land that he gave agency to produce. "Then God said..." to the land "And it was so." clearly shows the command was all sufficient nothing further was needed for his plan to unfold in his time frame. Why put time constraints on an eternal God as to his time frame? Is how he created any more miraculous whatever time was involved?


Let's look more closely at the order and the time in which God says that it was 'done'. God said, "Let the land produce vegetation". The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. So, God has now commanded that the land produce vegetation and declared to us that the land did what He commanded it to do. Then God saw that it was good and closed out the narrative that thus ended the evening and morning of the third day. So, it would seem, following the order of the narrative, that whether it was God stooping down to create each plant out of the dirt or that the land itself brought forth each plant of the earth, the command seems to have been fulfilled before that day of creation ended or the next day came around.

Looking more closely I don't see an order or timeline within each day rather I see a structure as I previously noted. Question: Why does not scripture use the pattern of Genesis 1:3 if immediacy was to be understood? What I do see is that God spoke. That is the sole operative command and all that relates must be with the understanding that "And God said..." is all sufficient and that very clearly mediate creation was explicitly stated. What you neglected to add in comments was "And it was so" which refers to the command, as does the designated day. If God had to "stoop down to create each plant" then obviously his spoken fiat was insufficient, and "it was so" signifies the end of his "work" for the given day. As noted God made is clearly post-fulfillment unless one questions the effectiveness of his fiats. Further, that God Spoke as in Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5 need be questioned if one disallows the efficacy of his command.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your understanding of the six days not being consecutive to have some merit. Then we are left to believe that on one day God created the earth. Then, what, a billion years later there came a day that God created the seas and divided the land?

On what day did God create the earth as it is not specifically mentioned within scripture. If God is timeless and eternal why do you believe it is beyond reason that he as he wills in his time? How long before creation did God exist?

Everything in both the heavens and the earth was made in six days, by God. And, according to the timeline as it is found in the Scriptures, it didn't take multiple days or years or millennia for God's commands to the land and water to fulfill what God commanded them to do.

There is no timeline in scripture that specifies time other then six days in which God spoke fiats. What 5 creation days in Genesis 1 does state is that God invoked processes through agency. This of course can be dismissed if one questions God's commands as being all sufficient.

But in each case, God sees that the land and water have done what He has commanded them to do, and then closes out that day.

God has to be sure that what he commands comes to fruition, really? The God I serve need not be unsure whether his commands come to be, he simply knows that what he has commanded will unfold as he instructed. Not a static universe and world but rather a dynamic one, just as we see today...if God is immutable as we believe why would he need to change his creative process. Wouldn't you think animals would still pop up out of the ground instead of a process?


(You claim to be a scientist, but you haven't yet said that you are of one of the sciences that denies the truth of God's word or not.)

Where did I claim to be a scientist? What science claims in the metaphysical realm has little to do with the evidences discovered in the world around us. Again, Romans 1:20 "understood for the things made", Psalm 19 "The heavens declare"...either things made can give us understanding and the universe can declare knowledge, or they can't! Do we need to doubt the endowments God has given us to obtain knowledge and wisdom of him and his creation?

My generation of Christians were predominantly YEC and decidedly so. It was actually reliance on AIG and other creationist sites that caused me to question YEC and to a small degree my faith. Oddly it was an Atheist that pointed me in the direction of Christian sites on science that helped shape my perspectives and eliminate the doubts imposed by dogmatic creationists. As is said on their own site "Why would we advise against using some arguments that appear to support creation? Simply put, some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right" From my perspective if they are wrong as noted then I question the meaning of "right".




That methodology does not account for something that God may have done in the past outside of what we know is naturally done in the creation. For example: It is claimed that the earth must be several billions of years old based primarily, although there are other reasons, that the light of distant stars couldn't be seen if that light is traveling across the universe from its source to the earth at the speed that we have tested and know, that light 'naturally' travels. Science cannot give any nod to some idea that, well, maybe God miraculously stretched that light, or He flung the stars into their places from a starting point near the earth and so we see them, even though they are only about 6,000 years out there. Because all that science can see is that the stars are out there and the light is here and if for all time light has always been studied, light only travels at a given speed. Therefore, either the stars were put out there long before the earth was created, or the earth is so many billions of years old.

As I tried to explain, and you being a man of science, perhaps you could provide some answers in this regard. How did a sea part, for at least a couple of hours for a half a million people to walk across on dry land, and the water that was parted just stand as a sentinel on both the right and left hand of those walking though the chasm?

Why confuse how God chose to create with his intervening as he wills? The only reason we look upon the parting of the sea as miraculous is because it is against the natural law norms that he imposed...but since he set forth the natural laws why would one doubt his power and ability to alter as he pleases? It wouldn't be a miracle if there was no norm by which to judge. Again, God's intervention in his creation would not be miraculous at all if there was no normal processes, would there? We deem creation and God's intervening miracles as such because we really don't, and can't, fully comprehend God's omnipotence. That scripture if rife with miracles does not speak to exactly how God chose to create, one could easily suggest that God could have created all things in just one day, or one hour, or in a moment...but he didn't.

"I will confound the wisdom of the wise!"

As to "I will confound the wisdom of the wise!" this in context of 1 Cor. speaks to the spiritual, to the gospel, and to salvation not to nature's revelation. As for me I will rely on what I see in scripture and what scientists who are Christian, without a procrustean myopia, tells us.

https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf

For me, and I've learned long ago on this forum that all I can explain is my own understanding of the Scriptures, when we take all of the testimony concerning the creation event, it seems pretty clear that it was in six days and that those days were consecutive to one another.

I believe as you that all I can set forth is my own understanding of scripture, when we take all of the testimony into account...from scripture and natural revelation. It is quite clear to me that given all of the evidence that God has provided both in scripture and in the revelation of nature it is clear that God need not be confined to a restricted timeline. One can go round and round but I believe the processes in Genesis remain today...why would God change his creation.

Further, I understand much of the push back on the metaphysical leaps of some (many) in science however, the basic evidence remains. I still believe Christians cherry pick the myriad examples of these same sciences putting such knowledge to practical usage. Just as I mentioned in perusing Theology subjects aside from the essential such issues as creation details have no bearing on salvation... "In the beginning God, that is really all that we can have absolute certainty of with regards to creation.

Genealogies: The Genesis Genealogies
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi jamsie

Thanks again for your response. It seems that we're now at the point where we just go back and forth. Now it's my volley.
"Just making commands"

It was 'just making commands, and then...' That means that I'm not denying that He made commands, but it's the part that follows those commands that you and I fall apart on. Yes, God made commands, but then according to the account, those commands were fulfilled before God closes the day. So, as I attempted to point out in my understanding of your explanation, is that it doesn't appear that His commands then were followed by some long time of ages before the commands were fulfilled.

You then asked:
Why put time constraints on an eternal God as to his time frame? Is how he created any more miraculous whatever time was involved?

I don't put time constraints on God, beyond what explanations that He gives to consider as time constraints. Each day is closed out, with the command completed, before the evening and morning of that day is completed. That's not a time constraint that I put on God. That's a time constraint that He willingly describes as the period of time in which His work was done. As I've said, I'm not arguing the point that God had to fashion every plant and animal. The only part of God's creating work where we are told that He personally molded and created with his own hand, would be man. The very pinnacle of all that He created in this realm and the very creature that He created all of this realm for. Man is definitely the purpose for which God created all that there is in this realm.

I am firmly convicted that God willingly puts that time constraint on His narrative for the very purpose of our understanding just how powerful and wise He is, and how He especially wants us to know how special we are to Him that all of this was done for us.

You replied:
God has to be sure that what he commands comes to fruition, really?

No, God is writing the account to us. He isn't writing this account so that He has a nice bed time story to lull himself to sleep at night. God is writing this account to us. So He doesn't tell us that it was all completed because He has to check and make sure that it was all done. It's so that we can understand that it was all done. Which you don't seem to understand as I do.

Where did I claim to be a scientist?

Sorry, I may have you mixed up with someone else. I was thinking somewhere back in one of earliest posts you had commented that you were involved in science. My apologies if that was not correct about you.

My generation of Christians were predominantly YEC and decidedly so. It was actually reliance on AIG and other creationist sites that caused me to question YEC and to a small degree my faith. Oddly it was an Atheist that pointed me in the direction of Christian sites on science that helped shape my perspectives and eliminate the doubts imposed by dogmatic creationists. As is said on their own site "Why would we advise against using some arguments that appear to support creation? Simply put, some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right" From my perspective if they are wrong as noted then I question the meaning of "right".

I do understand that there are quite a few 'christian' resources that are not in agreement with my understanding. That's ok. There are often 'christian' resources that see quite a lot of christian theology differently. One I mentioned earlier was the bread and wine/juice of communion not actually turning into the blood and body of Christ. Depending on which side your're looking to support, you can find resources for your arguments. However, I don't rest my understanding on those resources. They are fine to read and know, but the ultimate determination of the truth of the Scriptures and how one understands them, should be the Holy Spirit. That's who Jesus said would guide those who are born again in both sin and righteousness.

As to "I will confound the wisdom of the wise!" this in context of 1 Cor.

It was actually through Jeremiah and Isaiah that God speaks of thwarting the wisdom of the wise. And I quote:

The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

From Jeremiah we learn that it was because they 'rejected the word of the Lord...'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟40,776.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now you see, that was a little cunning on your part. We were discussing the creation account. Of course its true power is in its heavenly and transcendent message which speaks to us more deeply than we can know, but even if I was to concede that Gen 1 and 2 are purely allegorical, is the HS in the business of drawing imperfect figures of speech?

I am certainly not being cunning at all. Nor am I attempting to convince you or anyone else to say
Genesis is allegorical.

Good, have a look at the alleged pictures of earth from space.

I see no "silly" in them.

Biblical cosmology is flat, motionless and enclosed.

Not as I understand it, and I am very sure I could believe it if I thought it said so.
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟40,776.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is how he created any more miraculous whatever time was involved?


Again, God's intervention in his creation would not be miraculous at all if there was no normal processes, would there?

If a thing is miraculous because it defies science as we know it, surely creation in an unnaturally short time is more miraculous?

We deem creation and God's intervening miracles as such because we really don't, and can't, fully comprehend God 's omnipotence.

Unless God thinks they are miracles too, and just is not as impressed by them because they not a mystery to Him.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟326,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi jamsie,
Thanks again for your response. It seems that we're now at the point where we just go back and forth. Now it's my volley.

Thanks Ted, an interesting discussion and though not the intent to fully persuade I, as I assume with you, am even more confident of my position.


It was 'just making commands, and then...' That means that I'm not denying that He made commands, but it's the part that follows those commands that you and I fall apart on. Yes, God made commands, but then according to the account, those commands were fulfilled before God closes the day. So, as I attempted to point out in my understanding of your explanation, is that it doesn't appear that His commands then were followed by some long time of ages before the commands were fulfilled.

Yes, I understand your point of view, as I once held it, and that is where I see your position fail. I still contend that the fiat was the sole operative agent, that God made is clearly parenthetical to the command, that "it was so." is clearly the completion, that the day refers to the command, and that time is within God's domain, and that natural revelation allows us to understand his creation.

That's not a time constraint that I put on God. That's a time constraint that He willingly describes as the period of time in which His work was done.

I disagree because, again, that God spoke was all sufficient, the processes she commanded are the same as today, and if God spoke was sufficient than clearly God made is simply parenthetical...no animals popping out of the ground immediately, and none doing so today. Further, Genesis 1:3 establishes no denying that the command was immediate yet on 5 days that structure is never used again. As you mention God is writing an account to us...what is the real purpose at that time? And again there is no implicit hint at immediacy especially considering Gen. 1:3 and the instruction to created matter to produce.

Sorry, I may have you mixed up with someone else. I was thinking somewhere back in one of earliest posts you had commented that you were involved in science. My apologies if that was not correct about you.

Not a problem, the only science one might think regards my cooking and attempts to make cheesecake! I will add that there are a number of people on this site whose knowledge of things we discuss are quite impressive...and I find the OE crew much more persuasive...perhaps a little bias but not too much.


However, I don't rest my understanding on those resources. They are fine to read and know, but the ultimate determination of the truth of the Scriptures and how one understands them, should be the Holy Spirit. That's who Jesus said would guide those who are born again in both sin and righteousness.

Agreed and yet we have been led to completely different interpretations. After my embarrassing foray onto debate boards and learned that many creationist sites provided false info, which they later acknowledged, and constant quote mining, it took a quite few years to regain my balance.

The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?


Again, I believe this has to do with Spiritual matters not natural revelation...

Blessings and peace...
Nahum 1:7
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟326,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

If a thing is miraculous because it defies science as we know it, surely creation in an unnaturally short time is more miraculous?
Perhaps, then from my perspective creation in any time frame is miraculous. My interpretation simply comes from scripture and natural revelation - and I do rely on the opinions of trusted scholars with which to weigh such.​

Unless God thinks they are miracles too, and just is not as impressed by them because they not a mystery to Him.

I like that … they certainly would not be mystery to God.
 
Upvote 0

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am certainly not being cunning at all. Nor am I attempting to convince you or anyone else to say
Genesis is allegorical.

Oh Mrs Foundit, it seems I'm unwittingly testing your patience. Is Genesis allegorical and NOT literal, or allegorical AND literal? Can't and shouldn't it be both?

I see no "silly" in them.

Good, then you'll be able to show me many examples of a spinning ball with water conforming to its exterior in our daily experience. (hint: it doesn't happen because it breaches the most basic rules of physics).

Not as I understand it, and I am very sure I could believe it if I thought it said so.

Please point to any scripture (just one) that supports the idea of a spherical earth rotating and hurtling through space around the sun. I'll wait.
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟40,776.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh Mrs Foundit, it seems I'm unwittingly testing your patience. Is Genesis allegorical and NOT literal, or allegorical AND literal? Can't and shouldn't it be both?

Yes, both, and more.

Good, then you'll be able to show me many examples of a spinning ball with water conforming to its exterior in our daily experience. (hint: it doesn't happen because it breaches the most basic rules of physics)..

Creation itself stands in defiance of science. (TE notwithstanding).

Please point to any scripture (just one) that supports the idea of a spherical earth rotating and hurtling through space around the sun. I'll wait.

Based on this point, Australia does not exist either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, both, and more.

Good, we're getting somewhere. Let's look at the literal interpretation. Start here. Is there any teaching in Genesis or elsewhere that the earth is in motion? Conversely, is there any teaching that it is fixed, stable and immovable?

Creation itself stands in defiance of science. (TE notwithstanding).

Creation stands in defiance of science falsely so-called. Let God be true and every man a liar. I presume you mean theistic evolution, which is a vain attempt to reconcile principles that are fundamentally incompatible.

Based on this point, Australia does not exist either.

Why not? The creation account describes 'dry land'. In certain senses you're right though.
 
Upvote 0