suppose Darwin deeply wrong

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What child?

The child born in post 88

A child reading Genesis

 

[coffee4u]

Then the child asks since the God is omnipotent why did He take so long to create all the stuff ? Why did He rest since perfect being probaply does not get tired ?

And your answer will be "it is what the text says."

After which the child thinks you are dumb with your literal interpretation for not to seeing certain inconsistencies in your logic but humors you to get some ice cream.

God rested because it was the Sabbath and he was giving an example of how they were to treat the week. 6 days to labour, 1 day to rest.

Exodus 20
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

God rested because it was the Sabbath and he was giving an example of how they were to treat the week. 6 days to labour, 1 day to rest.

Right. By the same logic you could say He took 6 days to do the stuff he could have done immediately to show people they coud neglect whatever jobs they had as long they could finish it in 6 days it would be ok.

Also if we are being logical here since God does not need rest since he does not get tired or fatigued he did not actually rest. Of course if you are literal that means God was deceptive which we know He is not.

How do you explain that to a child ?

 

[JackRT]

God rested because it was the Sabbath and he was giving an example of how they were to treat the week. 6 days to labour, 1 day to rest.

Exodus 20
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

On the other hand:
Deuteronomy 5:12 Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labour and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

And:

Exodus 34:21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The child born in post 88

Sorry, thank you, I missed that part.

 

[Jamsie]

Right. By the same logic you could say He took 6 days to do the stuff he could have done immediately to show people they coud neglect whatever jobs they had as long they could finish it in 6 days it would be ok.

There is only one verse in the Genesis 1 narrative that speaks to immediacy... Verse 3, "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light". Subsequent to verse 3 all fiats invoke mediate creation as a plain reading demonstrates the commands are directed at pre-existing matter- water/land. As an example, if immediacy was to be set forth why not... "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures and there was living creatures"? So in reading Genesis 1 we believe that God's commands/fiats were not only the sole agent but also all sufficient to accomplish his purpose. What follows the commands - "God made living creatures" (etc.) must be parenthetical or explanatory because we know that his command was all sufficient. Again, each day's command thus are structured that so that the term "day" represents and relates to the command...not to any timeframe for that command to be completed. Just as the universe continues to expand and life on earth is dynamic not static so his commanded processes continue............

 

[coffee4u]

Right. By the same logic you could say He took 6 days to do the stuff he could have done immediately to show people they coud neglect whatever jobs they had as long they could finish it in 6 days it would be ok.

Also if we are being logical here since God does not need rest since he does not get tired or fatigued he did not actually rest. Of course if you are literal that means God was deceptive which we know He is not.

How do you explain that to a child ?

How do you get 'neglect work' from God saying labour for 6 and rest on 1?

Of course, he could have created immediately, he chose to do it over 6 days. This was how God established the week. The people were to follow his example of 6 days to work and one day to rest.

The Sabbath had nothing to do with God 'needing a rest'
Isaiah 40:28
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

The people were to set the day apart for God.

Resting in God is about more than rest.
Hebrews 4:1-11

We are meant to rest in God every day. It means resting in God's promises, in our salvation, in our faith.

Matthew 11:28-30
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

He will not grow tired or weary

Yet He rested if you take this literally. Whatever poor humans have to do to keep themselves up there is no shred of logic that God actually rested since He "will not grow tired or weary"

And if you do not take that literally why insist on other stuff like day being exactly day as it says. If there was any more cherry picking the farm hands in California would be worried about competition.

 

[coffee4u]

Yet He rested if you take this literally. Whatever poor humans have to do to keep themselves up there is no shred of logic that God actually rested since He "will not grow tired or weary"

And if you do not take that literally why insist on other stuff like day being exactly day as it says. If there was any more cherry picking the farm hands in California would be worried about competition.

Scripture interprets scripture.

Since Genesis says 6 days and you want to argue that point, it is on you to find scriptures that show otherwise.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Scripture interprets scripture.

Since Genesis says 6 days and you want to argue that point, it is on you to find scriptures that show otherwise.

Since the Bible creation tale is hardly meant to be take literally I see no point in pickering about the fictional fine points. I will leave that worthy pursuit for you. It should amount to an endless amount of pure useless effort but I know some people thrive on that.

 

[LoG]

Since the Bible creation tale is hardly meant to be take literally I see no point in pickering about the fictional fine points. I will leave that worthy pursuit for you. It should amount to an endless amount of pure useless effort but I know some people thrive on that.

No reason the Creation cannot be taken literally, just not superficially. Until I was about 10 or 11 I understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a simple 7 day creation event 6000 or so years ago. Then I came home from school one day with a textbook full of stories of cool dinosaurs that supposedly lived and died 60 million years ago and asked my father how that was possible if the world had only existed for a few thousand. 50 years later I am still thankful for the way he responded to the question. He simply said that some saw hints of previous creation(s) in the first couple of chapters of Genesis and referred me to the Scofield bible we had to look at the various footnotes regarding those passages. Though back then I didn't accept much of anything would father say, in that instance I had an immediate peace about the bible being literal and true in regards to the origins of both the Earth and this creation we are currently living in.

The bible doesn't go in depth about what existed before but it does strongly hint that Genesis 1 is a reconstruction event and when seen in that light, seemingly contradictory verses fall into place as being a true record of the event rather than having to be taken allegorically to make sense.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The bible doesn't go in depth about what existed before but it does strongly hint that Genesis 1 is a reconstruction event and when seen in that light, seemingly contradictory verses fall into place as being a true record of the event rather than having to be taken allegorically to make sense.

So how is that different from any other explanation you might dream up to make sense of the genesis ?

You think it makes more sense then the official explanation so you take it ? Until someone comes up with a better solution ..... like you know scientific methods ?

 

[coffee4u]

Since the Bible creation tale is hardly meant to be take literally I see no point in pickering about the fictional fine points. I will leave that worthy pursuit for you. It should amount to an endless amount of pure useless effort but I know some people thrive on that.

If Genesis 1 is a parable then you should have no trouble coming up with other verses to support your view then, shouldn't you?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

If Genesis 1 is a parable then you should have no trouble coming up with other verses to support your view then, shouldn't you?

Not at all.

How can the God rest if He is unchangeable, perfect and omnipotent. He does not ever enter a state that needs rest. Clearly this was not meant to be taken literally.

 

[coffee4u]

No reason the Creation cannot be taken literally, just not superficially. Until I was about 10 or 11 I understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a simple 7 day creation event 6000 or so years ago. Then I came home from school one day with a textbook full of stories of cool dinosaurs that supposedly lived and died 60 million years ago and asked my father how that was possible if the world had only existed for a few thousand. 50 years later I am still thankful for the way he responded to the question. He simply said that some saw hints of previous creation(s) in the first couple of chapters of Genesis and referred me to the Scofield bible we had to look at the various footnotes regarding those passages. Though back then I didn't accept much of anything would father say, in that instance I had an immediate peace about the bible being literal and true in regards to the origins of both the Earth and this creation we are currently living in.

The bible doesn't go in depth about what existed before but it does strongly hint that Genesis 1 is a reconstruction event and when seen in that light, seemingly contradictory verses fall into place as being a true record of the event rather than having to be taken allegorically to make sense.

And who said they lived 60 million years ago? Fallible men who weren't there, didn't see and don't know everything, but who assume they know everything. Why believe them over scripture?

Dinosaurs were simply land animals made on day 6.
Job 40:15–24
Job 41:1–34
Some were small and some were large and a few had the ability to grow their entire lives and grew huge because of the long length of life before the flood. Most died during the flood and afterwards, they became extinct like so many other animals. After the flood, God allowed man meat due to the coming ice age from the ash in the atmosphere and both they and their eggs would have been hunted for meat. The few left were rare and became things of legend which is where dragon stories come from. Then in 1842 palaeontologist Richard Owen invented their new name, dinosaur and later they were spun into something larger than life like a Disney production.

Nothing in the entire Bible indicates a previous creation and certainly not Genesis 1. And why would there be, God does not make mistakes nor did he create over the top of a billion dead things and call it very good.

The Scofield Bible is heresy.
Scofield Lies - Let God Be True!

 

[coffee4u]

Not at all.

How can the God rest if He is unchangeable, perfect and omnipotent. He does not ever enter a state that needs rest. Clearly this was not meant to be taken literally.

As you already well know God was not talking about taking a little rest.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

As you already well know God was not talking about taking a little rest.

Really ? What was he talking about ? He did not just say people should rest which is fine , we poor feeble things need it.

Why would God rest ? Remember we are being earnest and literal here. So tell me why and how would it even be possible for someone that is forever in perfect state and unchangeable ?

 

[Job 33:6]

"And who said they lived 60 million years ago? Fallible men who weren't there, didn't see and don't know everything, but who assume they know everything. Why believe them over scripture?" -cofee4u

This is like asking "and who said there was an ice age in the past, or that dinosaurs lived and walked?"

Fallible men who weren't there and didn't see them.

It's quite silly. Obviously we do not need a time machine to understand events of the past based on evidence.

Any one of us can look at the evidence and can conclude some 10+ independent ice ages. We can also see evidence of dinosaurs having lived.

And if we see things like oceanic trans and regresive sequences with animal tracks, burrows and nests in between, we can collectively form a series of events that logically couldn't occur in just a few thousand years.

 

[LoG]

So how is that different from any other explanation you might dream up to make sense of the genesis ?

Well it is not a personal interpretation but one that comes out of a deeper study of the words used to describe the events of Genesis 1 and 2, as well as other verses spread through the bible that refer to them. What that previous world looked like isn't stated so perhaps it was the evolutionary model that secular scientists insist it was or maybe what I accept to be more likely, is the idea of creation and extinction events with some new and some old life forms appearing in the new like Punctuated Equilibrium theory posits, using creation rather then evolutionary processes. Whatever it was has no bearing on the literalness of the remainder of the scriptures within their proper contexts. And of course, it is my own opinion based on what have read, faith and the degree of rationality I can bring to it. YMMV

You think it makes more sense then the official explanation so you take it ? Until someone comes up with a better solution ..... like you know scientific methods ?

Not sure what you consider the "Official explanation". Is there such a thing? As far as solutions go, the viewpoint I have had is good for me. I'm comfortable that it is well supported scripturally in spite of critics from both sides of the controversy (TE's and YEC's) as it doesn't try to define how or what may have happened before this world, only that there was one. On a need to know basis, God has stated there was no need for me to know. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest from a historical point of view as I do, but it doesn't affect my faith or spiritual life in the present. Neither does it affect my view of the bible as being literal in what it says in those places where I am meant to take it as such. Find me a place where it says that God was speaking in parables about Genesis like Jesus did for the stories He told then fine, I will reconsider.
Scientific method is all well and good, it is the interpretations that are often lacking. I have been around long enough to know that as new discoveries are made, the tools for testing get better and new hypothesis are presented that the interpretations will change. Science is a fickle thing because fallible humans are behind it. One's with agenda's, monetary considerations etc etc so its not something I feel comfortable changing my theology for. Again, YMMV.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Not at all.

How can the God rest if He is unchangeable, perfect and omnipotent. He does not ever enter a state that needs rest. Clearly this was not meant to be taken literally.

Why take unchangeable, perfect and omnipotent literally ? I mean if you do not take it literally, okay, it is your faith, but you appear to be strangely inconsistent with your interpretation system there.