Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[roman2819]

The account in Genesis is barely Creation 001, not even 101. It is only intended to say that God created heaven and the earth. As He made earth and lifeforms, there were a lot of other stuff that happened -- plenty, way too much – that were not specified or narrated in one chapter of Genesis. Think about it: How can the entire creation be packed into one chapter?

The end of John Gospel said: Jesus did many things and even a book is not enough to say them all, it would take many books to narrate it. The Bible doesn’t cover everything - far from it. It only say a few things. Genesis narrated Abraham in a few thousand words only. Can each of our life journey be spelled out in 5000 words?

The creation narrated in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally. It doesn’t mean that what isn’t said didn’t happen. It certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours. ‘Day’ just refer to a passage of time or a stage.

 

[truthpls]

Only you are saying the speech impediment.

What would you call it if it took 13 billion years to say a few words?

The account of creation in Genesis is only Creation 001, not even 101. It is only intended to say that God created heaven and the earth. When He created the earth and lifeforms, there were a lot of other stuff that happened -- plenty … way too much – that were not specified or narrated in one chapter of Genesis. Think about it: How can the entire creation be packed into one chapter?

It covered the universe, sun, moon and stars and earth and the seas and land and mankind. What more do you think we needed that God missed?

The end of John Gospel said: Jesus did many things and it would take many books to narrate it. The Bible doesn’t cover everything - far, far from it. It only say a few things.

And what it does say we need to believe. Such as that all things were made by Jesus and without Him was not anything made that was made

The creation narrated in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally.

Jesus was wrong then in talking about it?

It doesn’t mean that what isn’t said didn’t happen. It certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours. ‘Day’ just refer to a passage of time or phase or stage.

No. A day can be used in that context. Not in Genesis though. A day is a morning and an evening.

 

[roman2819]

No. A day can be used in that context. Not in Genesis though. A day is a morning and an evening.

Genesis says at the end of each 'day': “There was evening and there was morning.” It was "not morning, and an evening". Instead, it was the reverse: Evening first, followed by morning. Evening means the end of one stage, and morning is the beginning of another -- not the sunset and sunrise as we know it.

And if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days?

 

[David Lamb]

The account in Genesis is barely Creation 001, not even 101. It is only intended to say that God created heaven and the earth. As He made earth and lifeforms, there were a lot of other stuff that happened -- plenty, way too much – that were not specified or narrated in one chapter of Genesis. Think about it: How can the entire creation be packed into one chapter?

The end of John Gospel said: Jesus did many things and even a book is not enough to say them all, it would take many books to narrate it. The Bible doesn’t cover everything - far from it. It only say a few things. Genesis narrated Abraham in a few thousand words only. Can each of our life journey be spelled out in 5000 words?

The creation narrated in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally. It doesn’t mean that what isn’t said didn’t happen. It certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours. ‘Day’ just refer to a passage of time or a stage.

How do you know that the Creation account in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally? That it certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours?

 

[roman2819]

Jesus was wrong then in talking about it?

Not literal does not mean wrong. Consider the following from the book "Understanding prayer faith and God's will"

Consider how we say, “Men are taller than women.” However, is every man taller than woman? Indeed, some women are taller than men. However, unless we are delivering a science lecture, we don’t say, “Most men are taller than women” – we don’t speak factually.
......
Neither do we say, “Most men are taller than women, but some women are taller than men.” Indeed, communication will be cumbersome if we are constantly clarifying or qualifying our words in order to be exactly right; instead, people say what is sufficient to get their point across. It is not what the words say, but rather, what we are trying to say.
......
On a daily basis, conversations about work, weather or movies are straightforward, such as telling a friend to wait at the café that is opposite her office. However, there are situations where words are not exactly what they appear to mean. This norm also applies to the Scriptures. Interpreting God’s Word does not mean changing the usual way we think or interpret words.

 

[roman2819]

How do you know that the Creation account in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally? That it certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours?

Genesis says at the end of each 'day': “There was evening and there was morning.” But if the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, then it is not the sunset and sunrise as we know it. Note the order at the end of each day: Evening, followed by morning -- instead of morning and evening. Evening means the end of one stage, and morning is the beginning of another -- not sunset and sunrise. So 'day' in Genesis does not mean the usual day we mean.

Matthew 5:38 says: Turn the left cheek when someone slapped the right cheek [paraphrased]. What about dig out the eyes or cut off the hand if it caused you to sin? Is all these literal? Of course not. Some words or verses are not literal.

We can use some thinking and deduction when reading, such as would God rush to create hundreds of living creatures in 72 hours? I cannot explain everything but the following is adapted from the book, "Understanding prayer, Faith and God's will".

Consider how we say, “Men are taller than women.” However, is every man taller than woman? Indeed, some women are taller than men. However, unless we are delivering a science lecture, we don’t say, “Most men are taller than women” – we don’t speak factually. ....... Neither do we say, “Most men are taller than women, but some women are taller than men.” Indeed, communication will be cumbersome if we are constantly clarifying or qualifying our words in order to be exactly right; instead, people say what is sufficient to get their point across. It is not what the words say, but rather, what we are trying to say. .......This norm also applies to the Scriptures. Interpreting God’s Word does not mean changing the usual way we think or interpret words.

You can read sample pages on amazon if you google the title.

 

[AV1611VET]

The creation narrated in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally. It doesn’t mean that what isn’t said didn’t happen. It certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours. ‘Day’ just refer to a passage of time or a stage.

So if, for example, a day in Genesis 1 is an eon, are you saying angiosperms existed for an eon of time without the sun?

 

[AV1611VET]

And if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days?

The Light of the world shining on it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that the Creation account in Genesis is not meant to be interpreted literally? That it certainly doesn’t means that a ‘day’ is 24 hours?

Allegorizing Genesis 1 just makes things worse.

Now ... allegorists have to explain how grass and trees existed for an eon of time without the sun.

And how the earth came before the sun.

And how whales existed before land animals.

Just to name a few.

 

[River Jordan]

It did not say God created mountains naturally or the wind. There are four angels in charge of the winds you know. Is that natural weather control? If mountains and land resulted in God separating the water and land, that happened the day after He first spoke it into existence. Does speaking it into being and then altering a planet totally the next day seem 'natural' to you?

You completely missed the point. Scripture says God creates mountains and wind. We see mountains and wind being created right now by natural means. Therefore God does create via natural means (as well as by supernatural means).

There were no daughter or parents. They only became that when natural processes came to exist and that was after creation. You offer the idea that the reason a rock is the way it is, would be because of those processes working which produced the daughter material over great time. No. It was made instantly. Whenever God set up the forces of nature that started to affect those ratios was when some of the materials became parents or daughters. The only deception is thinking that all the material in the created rock was not there, but took untold long ages to get produced later

To repeat, I have no interest in your made up scenarios.

 

[truthpls]

Genesis says at the end of each 'day': “There was evening and there was morning.” It was "not morning, and an evening". Instead, it was the reverse: Evening first, followed by morning. Evening means the end of one stage, and morning is the beginning of another -- not the sunset and sunrise as we know it.

Funny it says the ( evening and the morning) were the day.

Example

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days?

Easy. Jesus is the light of the world.


Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

That means we had a moving light over earth before the sun existed. Jesus also lights New Jerusalem, no sun needed there either.

 

[truthpls]

You completely missed the point. Scripture says God creates mountains and wind. We see mountains and wind being created right now by natural means. Therefore God does create via natural means (as well as by supernatural means).


To repeat, I have no interest in your made up scenarios.

The only made up scenario here is that the stuff in a newly created rock got there by natural ways.
The so called mountains being made are minute processes working, unless it is a lava island. We also see babies being born today, that does not mean that God did not create Adam! We see rain fall, that does not mean there was rain in the time of Adam, or that God did not create the seas and rivers. We see trees growing that does not mean Good did not create trees in the beginning. We see what look like new stars. That does not mean God did not create the stars in the beginning. The context of God forming and creating mountains is not wind depositing dirt on mountaintops or whatever.

There are Natural Only Ways (NOW) happening now.

The problem with people not seeing God today in creation and their lives is that when they try to construct the past, they also do not see Him there.

 

[River Jordan]

Not so. According to Genesis, God created Adam as an adult, not a newly born baby.

It doesn't say that. In the NIV Genesis 1:25-28 God creates mankind and refers to mankind in the plural ("God blessed them and said to them...").

Immediately after his creation, Adam would have looked as if he were 20 or 30 years old.

Scripture does not say that.

Also God created trees with there seeds already in them, so the newly-created trees had the appearance of maturity.

It doesn't say that either. It just says God commanded the earth to bring forth vegetation. It says nothing about how that happened.

There is no hint of deception, for God tells us in the bible that this is what He did.

I don't read Genesis as if it were a newspaper report. If the point of Genesis was to be an explanation of exactly how God created everything, then it's not very good and has some major gaps and inconsistencies. However, if the point is to tell us (in somewhat poetic terms) that God is the creator of all and that mankind is sinful and in need of salvation, then it's actually quite beautiful.

But again, God specifically says in His word that He created sun, moon and stars to give light to the earth, not to wait billions of years before the earth received light from the more distant of them.

That type of thing only matters if you think the primary intent of Genesis is to be a scientific explanation of creation.

We are not told in the bible about annual rings, but we are told that God created trees with their seed already in them, so they were mature trees. But as God tells us this, how can it be deceptive?

Because it doesn't actually say that. It just says God commanded the earth to bring forth vegetation and the earth did. It says nothing else about how that happened, whether the vegetation appeared suddenly or grew over time, whether it appeared immediately with ripe fruit or if the fruit grew and ripened over time, or anything about tree rings.

And that makes sense if the point of Genesis is something other than to be a detailed scientific account of creation.

The isotopes in rocks, etc are not mentioned in Scripture, but you seem to ignore things that are clearly mentioned, like Adam being created as an adult and trees being created mature, not as tiny seedlings.

It doesn't say that.

 

[River Jordan]

The only made up scenario here is that the stuff in a newly created rock got there by natural ways.
The so called mountains being made are minute processes working, unless it is a lava island. We also see babies being born today, that does not mean that God did not create Adam! We see rain fall, that does not mean there was rain in the time of Adam, or that God did not create the seas and rivers. We see trees growing that does not mean Good did not create trees in the beginning. We see what look like new stars. That does not mean God did not create the stars in the beginning. The context of God forming and creating mountains is not wind depositing dirt on mountaintops or whatever.

There are Natural Only Ways (NOW) happening now.

You're starting to get it. God can create by natural means and by supernatural means.

 

[truthpls]

You're starting to get it. God can create by natural means and by supernatural means.

No. Natural is what exists after creation. Forming man from dirt was not natural. Endowing him with life was not natural. Putting man in charge of all other creatures was not natural. Living forever by eating the tree of life was not natural. God walking in the garden chatting it up with Adam was not natural. God moving over the sea was not natural. Etc. So you cannot say that any natural process was involved in creating the world by speaking it into existence and you cannot say that speaking something into existing takes billions of years.

There are both, but creation was by God and not by some manipulation or processes of already created things.

 

[River Jordan]

No. Natural is what exists after creation. Forming man from dirt was not natural. Endowing him with life was not natural. Putting man in charge of all other creatures was not natural. Living forever by eating the tree of life was not natural. God walking in the garden chatting it up with Adam was not natural. God moving over the sea was not natural. Etc. So you cannot say that any natural process was involved in creating the world by speaking it into existence and you cannot say that speaking something into existing takes billions of years.

There are both, but creation was by God and not by some manipulation or processes of already created things.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[roman2819]

Allegorizing Genesis 1 just makes things worse.

Now ... allegorists have to explain how grass and trees existed for an eon of time without the sun.

And how the earth came before the sun.

And how whales existed before land animals.

Just to name a few.

It is not about Allegorizing. It is about understanding what you read:

"However, when it comes to the Bible, somehow, we change the way we think or read; we choose to interpret words literally because they were spoken by God, as if “He said so”. We read with our eyes only, but not with our minds. This is the issue that we must recognize and change.

…..
Many people read the Bible differently from the way they read books about engineering, business or fiction. For academic subjects, we try to grasp the fundamentals and principles – and we have to, in order to pass examinations. Even for fiction and novels, we try to understand what is happening. In other words, we try to make sense of what we are reading. The same applies even when we watch movies, otherwise we are just looking blankly at the screen. But when it comes to the Scriptures, for some reasons, we change our thought process, knowingly or unknowingly. We cast aside understanding – almost totally. We read plainly and interpret words superficially and literally, without considering context or elements of human communication.

Literal interpretation, however, can be wrong if we ignore usage and context of words. Recently, in 2024, a friend said that some people, including his sister, insisted that Scriptures must be interpreted literally, otherwise it is heretic. My reply, with reference to Matthew 5:38, was: Ask them to turn the other cheek if someone slapped them on the right cheek. Or what about “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” [Matthew 7:1]? Do we pretend that nothing is wrong with lying or cheating? Jesus was really saying that all of us are sinful, don’t be self-righteous; but be compassionate as we admonish others.

How do we usually interpret verses? The typical approach is to read words factually. For Matthew 9:29, “According to your faith it shall be done for you”, we think that God answers prayer according to how much we trust Him. Trying to remove any doubts in our mind, we pray with a believing attitude. However, when requests are not granted, we think that our faith is not strong enough. In this way, we are focusing on the words and trying to enact them, instead of knowing what Jesus was trying to tell us."

The above is adapted from Understanding Prayer Faith and God's will.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not about Allegorizing.

Well if anyone allegorizes Genesis 1, academia can (and should) tear them apart.

 

[BCP1928]

Well if anyone allegorizes Genesis 1, academia can (and should) tear them apart.

It;s not an allegory, it's creation framed in parallel to the six day work week with a sabbath, which was already traditional practice when the account was written.

 

[Kylie]

If you claim it involves more than the natural, provide this for us in detail? Until then if it talks about creation using only the natural it does not know what it is talking about.

You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding what I say.

I have told you so many times I've lost count that science deals with what can be repeated and verified.

If the supernatural can be repeated and verified, then science will use it.

I have made this as clear as I possibly can. You refuse to understand it. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.