Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

And here I am afraid your whole thesis collapses.

Not exactly, Catherineanne; God could have embedde age into His creation, so that it came into existence "old". For instance, in the next 10 seconds, God can create a brand-new, state-of-the-art tank that literally falls apart with age when you touch it.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what 'firmament' means. And indeed this is how the Bible describes the earth.

A firmament is nothing more than a containment field, and there are three of them mention in the Scriptures:

• First Heaven = the atmosphere
• Second Heaven = outer space
• Third Heaven = Heaven proper

Revelation does not say anything about an orange. Nor does it say the angels came from inside the earth, but from its four corners.

Then take one more step for clarity --- since the four corners of the orange are embedded inside the orange's peel, simply balloon them outward until they touch the surface of the orange, and there you have it.

What about the question of the earth being immovable? Several places in the Bible make this statement. Are they wrong?

No, they aren't; obviously those passages are not talking about the earth's velocity or rotation speed, since the earth indeed "flys" through space. Notice this passage, which seems to contradict itself, but really doesnt ---

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

How can one be "steadfast and unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

 

[Catherineanne]

Not exactly, Catherineanne; God could have embedde age into His creation, so that it came into existence "old". For instance, in the next 10 seconds, God can create a brand-new, state-of-the-art tank that literally falls apart with age when you touch it.

Embedded age?

OK, assuming for a moment that this is possible, we then turn to motive.

Why would he?

Given that we have a God who can do anything, and who can create a 5,000 year old universe running from scratch in 6 days, why would he then choose to include what amount to deceptions in that universe?

Is not Satan the deceiver, not God? Is it not he who is called the Father of lies? Are we not told the truth is not in him?

Do you think God is capable of this kind of satanic work? What basis do you have from the Bible for saying that God has built deception into his creation on purpose?

If your statement is true, then you have a creation made by the deciever, and a god who is, to be honest, more evil than good.

Which contradicts God's statement in Genesis that what he saw was good.

Nice going.

 

[Radagast]

...How can one be "steadfast and unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

I don't believe "unmoveable" (ametakinetos) in this passage refers to physical motion. Paul was not telling his readers to sit down for a long time.

 

[Catherineanne]

Then take one more step for clarity --- since the four corners of the orange are embedded inside the orange's peel, simply balloon them outward until they touch the surface of the orange, and there you have it.

None of this is what Revelation says, is it?

In other words, this is not Biblical, but additional interpretation of what the Bible actually says. It says nothing about peeling the orange. It says the angels are at the four corners of the earth. Why do we need additional interpretation here, but not in Genesis?

No, they aren't; obviously those passages are not talking about the earth's velocity or rotation speed, since the earth indeed "flys" through space. Notice this passage, which seems to contradict itself, but really doesnt ---How can one be "steadfast and unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

Obviously because what the Bible says is not literally true, then it must mean something else?

And upon what are you basing your belief that the earth flies through space? The Bible certainly does not say so, and there are several verses of Scripture which are in direct contradiction of this assertion.

I Chronicles 16:30: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 93:1: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 104:5: He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded age?

Yup ---

OK, assuming for a moment that this is possible, we then turn to motive.

Why would he?

Given that we have a God who can do anything, and who can create a 5,000 year old universe running from scratch in 6 days, why would he then choose to include what amount to deceptions in that universe?

Age is something that we can't live without (now there's an original statement!). God simply embedded whatever amount of age into whatever object He created for a purpose. What that purpose is, I don't know. Why Zirconium has to be 4.57 billion years old is beyond me.

But what isn't beyond me is Genesis 1 --- and I find it hard to believe that God would deceive us by documenting what He did, when He did it, why He did it, where He did it, how He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

God gave us Genesis 1 so we wouldn't be deceived - (by evolution or any other philosophy).

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe "unmoveable" (ametakinetos) in this passage refers to physical motion. Paul was not telling his readers to sit down for a long time.

I don't either.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why does Genesis 1 contradict Genesis 2?

 

[Radagast]

Why does Genesis 1 contradict Genesis 2?

It doesn't, of course. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both included because they're both true. Which tells us something about how they should be interpreted.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"In our image"
That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things.
The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image," then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them," so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "..in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image?
Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? (And that nasty Paul Yost wants to know if He is circumcised! I figure He is, since He ordered his chosen people to be, presumably to make them more like their God. So who did it?) Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are?
Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God's image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God's hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob's wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn't recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn't win until He cheated by using magic!)

 

[AV1611VET]

None of this is what Revelation says, is it?

No.

In other words, this is not Biblical, but additional interpretation of what the Bible actually says.

It is an object lesson, designed to get you to understand how a three-dimensional object can have four corners, and even where those corners would be located.

It says nothing about peeling the orange. It says the angels are at the four corners of the earth. Why do we need additional interpretation here, but not in Genesis?

Genesis is pretty self-explanatory, but I can understand why this passage in Revelation would be hard to grasp to someone who applies two-dimensional (Plane?) geometry to a three-dimensional (Euclidian?) sphere.

Obviously because what the Bible says is not literally true, then it must mean something else?

Yes --- if it can't be explained literally, go with figuratively.

And upon what are you basing your belief that the earth flies through space?

Science --- specifically angular momentum.

The Bible certainly does not say so, and there are several verses of Scripture which are in direct contradiction of this assertion.

I disagree.

I Chronicles 16:30: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 93:1: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10: The world is firmly established. It cannot be moved.
Psalm 104:5: He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

I've covered this with sound hermeneutics --- I hope.

QED.

Put that away ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does Genesis 1 contradict Genesis 2?

Genesis 2 is not a repeat of Genesis 1 --- it is Adam's testimony of how he got married --- Verse 9 is simply parenthetical.

 

[paug]

I'd like to hear AV's response to post #105.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes --- if it can't be explained literally, go with figuratively.

Well then, since a literal Gen1 makes no sense, I guess you agree that it should be interpreted figuratively then... right?

Science --- specifically angular momentum.

I thought that "Science Can Take A Hike?" The Bible says nothing about earth flying around through space... it is blasphemy! If science disagrees with scripture, it must be destroyed!!!

I've covered this with sound hermeneutics --- I hope.

Let's see this "sound hermeneutics." Yes, you had better "hope," AVET, otherwise you would have to admit you are wrong about scripture...

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd like to hear AV's response to post #105.

Post 111

 

[paug]

Post 111

Oh, how did I miss that? my bad.

 

[Catherineanne]

God gave us Genesis 1 so we wouldn't be deceived - (by evolution or any other philosophy).

Tell me, is your god capable of deceit? Is he capable of 'embedded age'?

Mine is not.

Clearly, if you have chosen a different god, then you will have a different theology to go with that. In which case, there is probably nothing more to say.

 

[Catherineanne]

But what isn't beyond me is Genesis 1 --- and I find it hard to believe that God would deceive us by documenting what He did, when He did it, why He did it, where He did it, how He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

The Bible was not written by God. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that he dictated every word, nor that every single word is as he would have written it. Nowhere does it say that Scripture is inerrant, nor that every word has to be believed literally. Nowhere does Our Lord even mention what our attitude to written Scripture must be - there is no evidence in the Gospels that he was as obsessed about the written word as many Christians today. Our Lord was concerned about the heart, about honesty and integrity. And he was not afraid of the truth. He did not ever lie, nor use deception of any kind.

Anyone choosing to regard the Bible as more than it actually says it is, is actually behaving in an unBiblical way. You can choose to believe in the 6 day creation if you want to, but nowhere in Scripture, nor in the words of Our Lord, does it say that this irrational and nonsensical belief is an essential part of our faith, nor even that it is literally true. More than that, such a belief today, with so much evidence to the contrary, breaks Our Lord's injunction to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. We are not told to stop thinking, but to use our minds to love God. And that does not involve engaging in double think, denial, and rationalisation.

If anyone's faith is so fragile that it cannot accommodate a God of 12 billion or however many years, and has to have one of only 6,000, and one capable of the most appalling conjuring tricks and deception, then good luck to them.

Personally, I choose to believe that there is nothing in science to be afraid of, because my God is not so small, nor so fragile.

 

[Catherineanne]

Genesis 2 is not a repeat of Genesis 1 --- it is Adam's testimony of how he got married --- Verse 9 is simply parenthetical.

Where does the Bible say this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does the Bible say this?

Let me reiterate:

I'll take any questions you may have on the Creation, and try to answer them to the best of my ability. Keep in mind that the answers will be my opinion, and not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Christian community (Body of Christ) in general.