• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The whole seven days thing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
55
Austin, TX
✟23,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
TwinCrier said:
Thanks Remus, I forgot to get back to this thread. Since Erwin got rid of the ability to search for your own posts I'm lost.

I read a real good article once about how Jesus' line through Mary was actually more valid than Joseph's because since Mary had no brothers, the lineage could be passed through the woman, a one time exception, where with Joesph, Jesus would be considered an adopted son and not a blood relative, He would still be respected as having Joseph's ancetry as well.
In another post I asked TE's to explain where in the line of Jesus' ancestry the people went from the figuative Adam to the literal Jesus. I pray the Holy Spirit woks in their hearts as they ponder the question and search for an answer.
I read something like that before as well. The article went on to point out that the woman had to marry someone in her own tribe so that the inheritance would stay within the same tribe. This is why we have to have both Joseph’s and Mary’s genealogy. All of this comes from Numbers IIRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
55
Austin, TX
✟23,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
herev said:
ok, I've heard that before, but only from creationists and I don't know why--to proceed further is to cross a line here. Thanks for your answer. God bless you all
Feel free to pm me if you have any more questions about this.
 
Upvote 0

the rogue one

Member
Dec 12, 2004
19
0
✟129.00
Faith
Christian
Sascha Fitzpatrick,

1. What do you believe - literal or metaphorical 7 days.

I believe that God created everything in a literal six days and He rested on the seventh day.

2. How did you reach that?

A straight forward reading, the use of the words: "evening passed and morning came - the "nth" day". Go out side and you will see the same thing! Does it take thousands of years?? No. Also, the verse in Ex. 20:11: "For in six days God made the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that in them, and He rested on the seventh day". The good thing about God, I believe, is His forsight. People can claim that Genesis is not to be taken literally, but in other books where no poetic language is present, we get verses like the above that cannot be changed or refuted by anyone using the "it's not meant to be taken literally" argument - where do you start taking the Bible literally? This whole idea of it's not meant to be taken literally, as you can see, is very damaging to the Bible because it undermines it's authority and infallibility.

3. How old then, do you think the world is? How did you reach that decision - what articles/research helped?

The Earth and the universe is about 6,000 years old with the Global flood happening about 4,500 years ago. This can be easily found out by looking at the Biblical chronologies. These chronologies tell us how old the father was when the son was born. These start at Adam and end up going all the way to Jesus Christ, and we know when He lived, so by adding up the numbers you get a little over 6,000 years. I used to wonder why God put such chapters in the Bible, first one in early Genesis - Genesis 5? I can't remember and my Bible is packed for a while in storage - until I heard from Answers in Genesis who told me the obvious when I went to one of their seminars.

4. Why is it, when the problem is interpretation of the '7 days', do some people believe that when you don't completely agree with it being 7 literal days, you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross, God's commandments, etc etc. I've always believed firmly in the Bible as fact, but because of my interpretation of 7 days being different to a few other peoples, I've often been made to feel my faith is non-existent.

The ideas that you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross and the others are rubbish. Believing in eons of years as opposed to a few thousand years, is not essential to being saved. The only thing that you need is to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and that He paid the price so that if we trust Him and repent from our sins we will spend eternity with Him.

Depending on what you believe about the interpretation about Genesis you have the following questions to answer:
1. If suffering and death have been around for eons of years, what did the original sin do to the world?
2. Since Jesus is the Son of God, and He is supposed to have come down to Earth to conquer death, and if God has been using millions of years of suffering and death to create things - would Jesus not be opposing the plan of God?
3. We are told that there will be a restortation of all things where Jesus will restore everything back to how it was in the beginning. We are told that this place will be one where the lamb and the wolf will dwell together and there will be no more fear, suffering and death, crying, etc. How could such a place exist if there never was such a time in our history - a time of perfection?

It is much easier and more logical to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. This way, we do not make God out to be a sadistic ogre (if He used eons of years of suffering and death to create things). Also, it's not a matter of how He could have done it, it's a case of how He said He did it!

Sasch -> Who believes that God created the world, in 7 days, however he meant 7 days to mean - whether that was 7000 of our days, or 7 of our days, I don't care - I'm still going to heaven! :p

Glad to hear that! Praise the LORD for His mercy! :bow:

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
the rogue one said:
… Also, the verse in Ex. 20:11: "For in six days God made the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that in them, and He rested on the seventh day".

sixdays.jpg

I think a better translation of this passage is:

For six days the Lord worked on (‘aasaah) the upper heaven and the planet earth …..

What I don’t get in this passage is the idea that within a six day period, God created the whole universe.

This is a reference back to Genesis 1 and not new information.

You may ask what was done during that 6 days in the upper heaven if not the stars.

The answer is:

1. Established the upper waters from their state as a thick cloud layer covering the deep like a swaddling band. Gen 1:7-8; Job 38:9

2. Set the Sun and the Moon in their position in the firmament of the upper heaven. Gen 1:14-19; Ps 136:8-9
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,993
268
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,937.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you believe God made the universe billions of years earlier? Why? I disagree with the way you want to translate the verse. One reason would be that many translators would disagree with you.

NIV
Exo 20:11 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. :

KJV
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

NASB
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

RSV
Exo 20:11 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.

In fact I can't find one translation that supports your idea. It seems to me you need to make the universe billions of years old for some reason so try to read that into the Biblical text.





keyarch said:
sixdays.jpg

I think a better translation of this passage is:

For six days the Lord worked on (‘aasaah) the upper heaven and the planet earth …..

What I don’t get in this passage is the idea that within a six day period, God created the whole universe.

This is a reference back to Genesis 1 and not new information.

You may ask what was done during that 6 days in the upper heaven if not the stars.

The answer is:

1. Established the upper waters from their state as a thick cloud layer covering the deep like a swaddling band. Gen 1:7-8; Job 38:9

2. Set the Sun and the Moon in their position in the firmament of the upper heaven. Gen 1:14-19; Ps 136:8-9
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,993
268
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,937.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When where the stars made? Day 4.


Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:




Commentary by great scholars past and present support this.

1599 Geneva Commentary
By the lights be means the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Matthew Henry Commentary
This is the history of the fourth day's work, the creating of the sun, moon, and stars, which are here accounted for, not as they are in themselves and in their own nature, to satisfy the curious, but as they are in relation to this earth, to which they serve as lights; and this is enough to furnish us with matter for praise and thanksgiving.

John MacArthur Commentary
1:14 lights. Cf. v. 16. For 3 days there had been light (v. 4) in the day as though there were a sun, and lesser light at night as though there were the moon and stars. God could have left it that way, but did not. He created the “lights, sun, moon, and stars,” not for light, but to serve as markers for signs, seasons, days, and years. signs. Certainly to include: 1) weather (Matt. 16:2,3); 2) testimony to God (Pss. 8,19; Rom. 1:14–20; 3) divine judgment (Joel 2:30,31; Matt. 24:29); and 4) navigation (Matt. 2:1,2). seasons. It is the earth’s movement in relation to the sun and moon that determines the seasons and the calendar.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php#_ftnref1


 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Project 86 said:
So you believe God made the universe billions of years earlier? Why? I disagree with the way you want to translate the verse. One reason would be that many translators would disagree with you.
Project 86 said:
In fact I can't find one translation that supports your idea. It seems to me you need to make the universe billions of years old for some reason so try to read that into the Biblical text.
I believe that the universe was created in Genesis 1:1. We are not told exactly when, only that it was in the Beginning. The beginning of time was before there was an earth. [Proverbs 8:22-23]

Why do I hold this model? Because that’s what the literal reading of scripture says. Genesis 1:2 describes the state of the planet before the first day of the creation week.

Regarding translations: Have you noticed even in your own example of the KJV that the word “in” is italicized? That’s because it was added in. Other translations have merely followed. All the ones you’ve cited also say the word “made” not created (baaraa’). That’s because the original word is ‘aasaah which means:

OT:6213 `asah (aw-saw'); a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, feast, [fighting-] man, finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, hinder, hold ([a feast]), indeed, be industrious, journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, sacrifice, serve, set, shew, sin, spend, surely, take, thoroughly, trim, very, vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.


I don’t know why separating the universe and the unfinished planet from the start of the creation week some 6,000 years ago is such a problem. How does it conflict with any Christian doctrine?
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Project 86 said:
When where the stars made? Day 4.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Put this passage into context. It goes on to say that God made TWO great lights and the lesser one was to rule the night with stars. It does not say God created stars on this day!
gen1_16.jpg

The English translations have inserted the words "He made the stars also".
I wouldn't hold to close to MacArthur's commentary on creation. I have a few notes on his Battle for the Beginning sermon at: www.genesistruth.org/documents/macarthurgenesis.pdf
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,993
268
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,937.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Battle for the Beginning is a very good book. I have to disagree with you on this topic keyarch and would have to agree with John. God made "lights", which is stars, then he ALSO made the sun and the moon. I just think you read into the passage that it was just the sun and the moon he made so you can make the universe very old for whatever reason you have for doing so. As for Genesis 1:1 that is just saying what God did and after that it talked about the order he did it in.
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Project 86 said:
Battle for the Beginning is a very good book. I have to disagree with you on this topic keyarch and would have to agree with John. God made "lights", which is stars, then he ALSO made the sun and the moon. I just think you read into the passage that it was just the sun and the moon he made so you can make the universe very old for whatever reason you have for doing so. As for Genesis 1:1 that is just saying what God did and after that it talked about the order he did it in.
Ok, we'll disagree on this. If you choose to believe that scripture says that God did not create anything material for an endless amount of time until about 6000 years ago; then created the earth first, worked on it for a few days; then on the fourth day created the whole cosmos with everything in it; then came back and finished his work here on earth and was finished... you're welcome to that belief. The evidence doesn't support that view, so what we see in the universe must be an illusion.
Beyond what I think is a straight forward reading of scripture, it makes more sense to me that with all the Creative powers of God, that he would have used them at least a little before (or maybe all along) and not just exploded in all this activity in a six day period in all eternity and then stopped.
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Project 86 said:
God made "lights", which is stars, then he ALSO made the sun and the moon. I just think you read into the passage that it was just the sun and the moon he made so you can make the universe very old for whatever reason you have for doing so.
Genesis 1:14-16 is the same event, not two separate creative acts. If you will notice in
1:14, it talks about one purpose for these lights is "to divide the day from the night". So let's imaging if He stopped there. Would stars divide the day from the night? No. If we just had stars, it would be a consistent low light day and night. Would they be good for the average person to distinguish days and years. I don't think so, especially if you were looking at the North star all the time.

Genesis 1:15-18 is a continuation of the same account with expanded detail on where the TWO great lights were placed and their purpose which corresponds with Gen. 1:14. Another thing to notice is that the word for "stars" is only used once at the end of 1:16 as a description of what we see at night when the moon is the ruling light. The Hebrew does not say anything to the effect that "God created or made" the stars at this point in time. The only way one could come up with that interpretation is by a translation that inserts words that aren't there. While I use the KJV most of the time, I recognize that this is not the only place that words are inserted that change the meaning. A related reference to this topic is Exodus 20:11 where the KJV says "For in six days.." and the word for word would be "For six days..".

My agenda is merely for the Truth in scripture. I use the same study and reasoning to prove the Bible says there was a global flood, not just a local one. I think if one looks at the actual words of the scripture (not just a translation), and compare all the passages that relate to the topic; it all comes together without having to make up any theories about God creating the Universe with apparent maturity, or faster speed of light in the past, etc.

Think about this – if the Bible is saying that the Upper Heavens (containing stars) are from the Beginning (first fruits of God) along with the core elements of the planet earth (Genesis 1:1-2) and all the biology was created some 6,000 years ago and there was a global flood some 4,400 years ago that made most of the thousands of feet of sediments and buried or killed all the land animals along with many sea creatures that were thrown onto the continents thru giant tsunamis etc.; it’s very possible that all the true scientific evidence would correspond and there would be no Biblical conflicts with creation, sin, death, salvation etc. We could then evangelize to the world with full confidence of the truth.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It seems to me that there are two basic things you have to realize about the Genesis account of creation. The first and most imporatant thing is that it makes a general statement like God created the heavens and the earth. Then there is an elaboration on the creation of the earth over a six day period. In the second chapter there is an elaboration on the work of the sixth day, specifically the creation of Adam and Eve.

Now the second thing that is important to consider is that the description is from the perspective of the earth. Notice that the Holy Spirit is hovering over the face of the deep and God says 'Let there be light'. What is happening here is that the earth is probably covered in darkness and God is letting the light in. I have entertained the idea that this was the introduction of the Shekina (sp?) glory of God which is described at the dedication of the Tabranacle. From the Holy of Holies there came a fire that could never be allowed to go out and when strange fire (actually incense) was brought into the Holy Place Nadib and Abihu we killed by a fire that came from the Holy of Holies.

This has signifigance in the New Teatament since it says in Romans 6 that God raised Christ from the dead through the 'glory of the Father'. Over the years I have seen that the original creation is clearly related to the Gospel.
Consider this, Darwin was supposedly a Christian at one time but he makes this statement:

"from its manifestly false history of the earth...and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." Of his view of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, he could not see how "anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."" (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Edited by Nora Barlow, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, London, 1958.)

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/olds...apers12HTML.htm

You have to realize here that there is only one person in the New Testament that speaks with authority and in detail about hell. That would make that a doctrine of Jesus Christ Darwin calls 'damnable'. I am tempted to start a thread on the Gospel according to TE Christians but I don't think I will like what I hear when we discuss how the Gospel must be rooted in history. Christian apologetics are about only one thing, defending the Gospel.

Nice exposition, hope I didn't wander to far of on a tangent.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
mark kennedy said:
It seems to me that there are two basic things you have to realize about the Genesis account of creation. The first and most imporatant thing is that it makes a general statement like God created the heavens and the earth.
May I assume that you are referring to Genesis 1:1 as being an overview statement the first thing that I “have” to realize; and the description of the following events are from the perspective of earth is the second thing that I “have” to realize? If so, and I am to accept what you say, then I have the following questions:


1. If Genesis 1:2 is the start of the narrative, where did the “deep” come from and what was the “face of the waters”?

2. What was the start of the first evening and morning if not the first “And God said” when He “let there be light”.

3. In Genesis 1:9 there is gathering of the waters to let the dry land appear. Doesn’t that suggest that the earth’s materials were below the waters and He made them rise and/or the sea bottom sink rather than creating the material and inserting it into the lower waters? If so, doesn’t that suggest that those earth materials were there as part of Genesis 1:2?

4. In Genesis 1:14-18 the Sun and Moon are set in the firmament of Heaven. Are you suggesting that there is only one level of Heaven that was created in Genesis 1:7? If so, then you need to do a more in depth study on the definitions of Heaven. If not, then when were the upper Heavens created? BTW, many YEC say time and the space of heaven were established in Genesis 1:1, but yet also say it is a heading or overview statement. It can’t be both.

5. Are you suggesting that if one interprets Genesis 1:1-2 as what God created and was doing before the six day creation week it is equal to “TE”?
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,993
268
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,937.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1. If Genesis 1:2 is the start of the narrative, where did the “deep” come from and what was the “face of the waters”?

Earth was a sphere of water made on day 1. The face is the surface.

2. What was the start of the first evening and morning if not the first “And God said” when He “let there be light”.

Your addressing Mark so I won't worry that I don't get your question.

3. In Genesis 1:9 there is gathering of the waters to let the dry land appear. Doesn’t that suggest that the earth’s materials were below the waters and He made them rise and/or the sea bottom sink rather than creating the material and inserting it into the lower waters? If so, doesn’t that suggest that those earth materials were there as part of Genesis 1:2?

It could have easily been created or under the water. The Bible doesn't give us enough information.

4. In Genesis 1:14-18 the Sun and Moon are set in the firmament of Heaven. Are you suggesting that there is only one level of Heaven that was created in Genesis 1:7? If so, then you need to do a more in depth study on the definitions of Heaven. If not, then when were the upper Heavens created? BTW, many YEC say time and the space of heaven were established in Genesis 1:1, but yet also say it is a heading or overview statement. It can’t be both.

I don't understand your problem. Time and space was created on day 1. What else are you trying to say YEC are claiming was created on day 1? Rephrase your statement.

5. Are you suggesting that if one interprets Genesis 1:1-2 as what God created and was doing before the six day creation week it is equal to “TE”?

I wouldn't, if you deny macroevolution. You wouldn't be far off from being a TE though.
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Project 86 said:
Earth was a sphere of water made on day 1. The face is the surface.
Part of the problem is that you don’t understand my question to Mark on what the start of the first day was. I’m saying that the first “day” has to have light associated with it; otherwise there would be no “evening and morning”. Before God “let there be light” there was the “waters”. I see no statements of the creation the waters on the first “day”.


Just for the sake of argument, consider the creation model with Genesis 1:1 as literally being the creation of the heaven (universe) and the earth (unfinished state) prior to the creative acts of Genesis 1:3-31. This takes nothing away from the Bible, Christianity, Creation or any of the other doctrines of the YEC. What it does take away is the argument of Starlight and Time and the age of minerals. It keeps arguments that involve the sun and moon because they were set in place on day 4.

In essence, it avoids the issues that come up from the position of all young or all old models. It really is just too simple.
5. Are you suggesting that if one interprets Genesis 1:1-2 as what God created and was doing before the six day creation week it is equal to “TE”?
I wouldn't, if you deny macroevolution. You wouldn't be far off from being a TE though.
My model is wholly creation and fully denies macroevolution. There is no creation of biology before 6,000 years ago and since then only variation within kinds. In essence I am just like a YEC with the exception of the things mentioned above.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
keyarch said:
May I assume that you are referring to Genesis 1:1 as being an overview statement the first thing that I “have” to realize; and the description of the following events are from the perspective of earth is the second thing that I “have” to realize? If so, and I am to accept what you say, then I have the following questions:

I was just pointing out what I believe is a literary feature, I never meant to imply that you couldn't understand it other ways. I admit that does sound a little dogmatic but I never intended it in that way.

1. If Genesis 1:2 is the start of the narrative, where did the “deep” come from and what was the “face of the waters”?

I think I see you're point, the original creation is previous to the six day creation. Good catch. In Genesis 1:1-3, here God lays the foundations of the the earth and forms them like a lump of clay. God never intended that the earth be empty and uninhabited:

"For this is what the Lord says- he who created the heavens, he is god; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-he says, I am the Lord and there is no other. " (Isaiah 45:18)

2. What was the start of the first evening and morning if not the first “And God said” when He “let there be light”.

The start of Genesis 1-3 was the seperation of light from darkness on the earth. When God says, Let there be light, he is not creating the heavens and the earth per se he is continuing his creation based on the foundational creation from nothing.

3. In Genesis 1:9 there is gathering of the waters to let the dry land appear. Doesn’t that suggest that the earth’s materials were below the waters and He made them rise and/or the sea bottom sink rather than creating the material and inserting it into the lower waters? If so, doesn’t that suggest that those earth materials were there as part of Genesis 1:2?

Prior to the seperation of the land from the water there was a seperation of the expanse between land and water. Then there was a seperation of the water below and the expanse above. I'm not sure what you mean by materials but prior to the second day of creation the earth would have been completly covered in water, possible a reducing (hydrogen rich) atmosphere. Assuming this is the case the hydrogen atmosphere would have (if you'll pardon the expression) to be diffused and diluted for life to emerge. The introduction of Ultra violet light may well of gave rise to a prebiotic soup from which the living creatures were formed. I'm speculating a little but it has some interesting possibilities that would solve some problems with Miller/Urey Experiment.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html


4. In Genesis 1:14-18 the Sun and Moon are set in the firmament of Heaven. Are you suggesting that there is only one level of Heaven that was created in Genesis 1:7? If so, then you need to do a more in depth study on the definitions of Heaven. If not, then when were the upper Heavens created? BTW, many YEC say time and the space of heaven were established in Genesis 1:1, but yet also say it is a heading or overview statement. It can’t be both.

I see you're point, I'm going to have to say that the perspective is from the earth and the sun and moon were allready there. With the changes in the atmosphere the sun, moon and stars are now visible from a earthly perspective so I think they had allready been fully formed.

5. Are you suggesting that if one interprets Genesis 1:1-2 as what God created and was doing before the six day creation week it is equal to “TE”?

You got me there and you're right, it was a careless mistake. I guess I should have given the Genesis account a closer look. To revise my statement, Genesis 1:1-2 are obviously foundational acts that are previous to the six day creation of life on earth. Ouch that smarts when you get rapped on the knuckles like that. Great job!

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

keyarch

Regular Member
Nov 14, 2004
686
40
✟23,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
mark kennedy said:
I see you're point, I'm going to have to say that the perspective is from the earth and the sun and moon were all ready there. With the changes in the atmosphere the sun, moon and stars are now visible from an earthly perspective so I think they had already been fully formed.
Thank you for taking the time to actually consider my point rather than just throw back some dogmatic rhetoric.


I have to say that I don’t think the sun and moon were already there. They may have been previously created, but scripture says that He shall cause them to be in the firmament of the upper heaven - Gen. 1:17 (on the fourth day). (Wayiteen = “And shall cause”). If they were already in place the action would have been on the upper waters (cloud layer) to make the light visible to earth and there is no mention of that.

God Bless,

Dennis.
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,993
268
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,937.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I see no statements of the creation the waters on the first “day”.

The earth was made on the first day and as the Bible shows us it was a globe of water.

In essence, it avoids the issues that come up from the position of all young or all old models.

So your saying there are problems for YEC because of star light and results from different dating methods? Many scientists have already addressed these "problems" for the YEC side. If you want I'll point you to those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I was starting to wonder if I had not departed from mainstream creationism. I decided to check out AIG to see if my understanding of there position was defective. I found these two articles:

"The objects created in Genesis 1:1 in 20th century terms are 'universe' and 'earth', although from the descriptions which follow in Genesis 1, neither of these was in a complete state. The emphasis of the statements in Genesis also becomes obvious even in the first sentence concerning creation. Since the earth is a part of the universe or of the heavens, the statement that God created the universe, would have covered everything, including the earth. The fact that it is mentioned separately focuses the reader's attention on the interest that God takes in His creation in general - the universe, and His creation in particular — Earth."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3790.asp

"We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this created light."

How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?

Genesis 1:1-2 is Gods creation 'bara'. I'm something of an amature bookworm so I couldn't resist the tempation to cite something from my Vine's Expositiory Dictionary:

"bara- "to create, make," This verb is of profound theological signifigance, since it has only God as its subject. Only god can 'create' in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 40:5)...Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth( Gen 1:1; Isa 40:26; 42:7; 45:18; 65:17); Man (Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Ps 89:47); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal 2:10)...et al...Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. (Vine Expository Dictionary)

If I am not completly confused then the Creationist postition is that the heavens and the earth were created before the six day creation began.

From Henry Morris' book Biblical Creationism:

"The particular events of the six days involved three specific events of ex nililo creation , marked by the use of the Hebrew word bara (create), a verb never used to describe the work of anyone other thatn God the Creator. These three events were the creation of the physical universe, the creation of the entity of conscious life, and the creation of the spiritual nature (the image of God) in man; "In the beginning Go created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1); "God created...every living creature that moveth"(Gen 1:21); God created man in his own image...; male and female he created he them (Gen 1:27)."

From his commentary on the Fourth Day:

"Constructing the vast astrosphere suronding the earth (sun, moon and stars) and placing these "lights" throughout the infinite space of heaven that had been created on Day One, these also being made of the same earth matter created on Day One..."

(Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism)

Henry Morris has done some great work but when he does Biblical expostitions he just loses me. I guess its a commonly held belief among creationists that sun, moon and stars did not exist until the fourth day. I don't see how the text would require that particular interpretation. Personally I like the idea that the narrative is from the perspective of the earth and the light was being exposed not created in the bara sense. The reason I believe that is because he says let there be lights to govern the day and night. I think it is pretty obvious that the Genesis 1:1-2 creation and the subsequent 6 day creation are seperate events. It seems reasonable to think that they were in the rough originally and he later fine tuned them on the fourth day. I'm going to give Genesis 1 some more thought and then try to work out an expostion.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.