Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Hieronymus]

(see above)

Thanks for the information.

I conclude the Hebrews verses do not mean 'earths', like the earth in Genesis 1 on which we live, but iḿ not 100% sure, nor do i understand what is meant by '(created) eons'

 

[mmksparbud]

Thanks for the information.

I conclude the Hebrews verses do not mean 'earths', like the earth in Genesis 1 on which we live, but iḿ not 100% sure, nor do i understand what is meant by '(created) eons'

Do you mean where it says he created the ages??
(Heb 1:2 LITV) in these last days He spoke to us in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all; through whom He indeed made the ages;

I'm the one that used the word eons---I mean God had endless time in which to create--He is from everlasting to everlasting---He had all of eternity --countless years--in which to create. Doesn't make sense that He would wait until one day in one week to create all those other galaxies out there along with this one---I would think He would have been creating others worlds out there long before this galaxy and even after this one. Of course, these last few years He has had His hands full with us!!

I'm not sure what Hebrews means by making the ages---never thought about it until now.
Looked this up


Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

—Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)
From the same as G0104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):—age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
—Strong's (Greek Dictionary of the New Testament)

• #165.
• αι᾿ω´ν
• aiōn; from a prim. root appar. mean. continued duration; a space of time, an age:—
• NASB - age(20), ages(6), ancient time(1), beginning of time(1), course(1), eternal(2), eternity(1), ever*(2), forever(27), forever and ever(20), forevermore(2), long ago(1), never*(1), old(1), time(1), world(7), worlds(1).

EEKK!! My head is spinning!!

 

[Hieronymus]

EEKK!! My head is spinning!!

So is mine...
But thanks for the insights.

 

[BobRyan]

There are no other worlds, Genesis 1:1 and on...

Genesis 1:1 says "the heavens and the earth" -- does the term "heavens" include suns... solar systems... galaxies in your view?

If not then I still bet you will agree that a great many other Christians who accept a literal 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2 ... would consider that the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 includes suns... solar systems... galaxies "and all that is in them".


Heb 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Heb 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Earth and world mean different things.

I am not sure where you are going with that.

There are no other worlds, Genesis 1:1 and on...

John 3:16 "God so Loved the World that He gave..."

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1:16 tells us He also made the stars on the 4th day.
In all, there is 1 earth.

1 earth.

and only 2 lights made on day 4.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night;


(He made the stars also) is in the form of addendum - and merely points to God as their maker - but does not include them in the two lights made on day 4.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's interesting.
I tend to assume 'the heavens / skies' may refer to the quantum matrix (or soup) which He stretched out to be filled with his Creations.And that would include the universe then, with all it's laws of nature.I didn't know that. That's interesting.
No 'stars' then.
But in Job God claims the stars are part of his Creation though..

But what are your thoughts on Hebrews 11:3 and Hebrews 1:2 concerning the "worlds"?

I had made a mistake on Gen 1 verse 17---it is corrected now.

 

[Jipsah]

Looks like this has turned into the Spacemen & Flying Saucers discussion again. So much for Sola scriptura. <Laugh>

Why don't y'all 'splain to us again how Genesis must be taken literally, but our Lord Christ's very words must not be taken literally. I've rarely seen feats of logical defenestration that worthy of Cirque du Soleil before!

 

[mmksparbud]

It is against the rules to bring up past censoring by mods of individuals for bad manners, so I will not.

 

[BobRyan]

If not then I still bet you will agree that a great many other Christians who accept a literal 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2 ... would consider that the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 includes suns... solar systems... galaxies "and all that is in them".


Heb 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Heb 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Looks like this has turned into the Spacemen & Flying Saucers discussion again. So much for Sola scriptura. <Laugh>

At some point - ignoring every scripture in the discussion as "the solution" will become boring - even for you.

 

[Jipsah]

IAt some point - ignoring every scripture in the discussion as "the solution" will become boring - even for you.

You might try citing something once in awhile that actually has some bearing on your, shall we say, creative doctrinal traditions. <Laugh>

 

[BobRyan]

If not then I still bet you will agree that a great many other Christians who accept a literal 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2 ... would consider that the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 includes suns... solar systems... galaxies "and all that is in them".


Heb 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Heb 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Looks like this has turned into the Spacemen & Flying Saucers discussion again. So much for Sola scriptura. <Laugh>

At some point - ignoring every scripture in the discussion as "the solution" will become boring - even for you.

You might try citing something once in awhile that actually has some bearing on your, shall we say, creative doctrinal traditions. <Laugh>

Consider the "Bible " -- for a change.... you might actually like it.

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave..." John 3:16

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1:1 says "the heavens and the earth" -- does the term "heavens" include suns... solar systems... galaxies in your view?

If not then I still bet you will agree that a great many other Christians who accept a literal 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2 ... would consider that the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 includes suns... solar systems... galaxies "and all that is in them".

Yes, I think the creation of the heavens and the earth included the sun, moon and stars. The fourth day creation isn't as strong a term for


Heb 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Heb 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;



I am not sure where you are going with that.



John 3:16 "God so Loved the World that He gave..."

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)​

It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).​

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is reqularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.

Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc.​

The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jipsah]

I still bet you will agree that a great many other Christians who accept a literal 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2

Hey, we've got Christians right here in these forums who believe in a flat earth and a geocentric universe, and all, they say, on the basis of Scripture. Are you on board with that as well?

... would consider that the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 includes suns... solar systems... galaxies "and all that is in them".

Nah, God created the earth, but He had a contractor do the suns and solar systems and galaxies. If you're still trying to make the Scriptural case for Spacemen & Flying Saucers you're not doing a very good job of it.

At some point - ignoring every scripture in the discussion as "the solution" will become boring - even for you.

I'm not sure what position you're arguing now. Are we still on "You Must Take Genesis Literally!" or have we moved on to SM&FS? If the former, here's Scripture for you to ignore again:

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

You say it isn't our Lord's Body and Blood. He says it is. You say that our Lord's Body and Blood are not present in the elements of the Eucharist. St. Paul says they are. I think I'll go with their view rather than yours.

Still trying to figure out how you have a literal evening and morning before the sun is created. <Laugh>

Consider the "Bible " -- for a change.... you might actually like it.

Can I read the whole thing, or just the few SDA Approved bits? <ROFL>

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave..." John 3:16

A proof text for the existence of Spacemen? Hmmmm...

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey, we've got Christians right here in these forums who believe in a flat earth and a geocentric universe, and all, they say, on the basis of Scripture. Are you on board with that as well?

Your equivocating, cosmology, astronomy and creation are separate issues. We know that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, we just don't know when. What we know as a matter of doctrine that God created life and we can assign some pretty specific dates to that.

Nah, God created the earth, but He had a contractor do the suns and solar systems and galaxies. If you're still trying to make the Scriptural case for Spacemen & Flying Saucers you're not doing a very good job of it.

Logical fallacies are notorious for getting into reason and including too many pointless tangents.

I'm not sure what position you're arguing now. Are we still on "You Must Take Genesis Literally!" or have we moved on to SM&FS? If the former, here's Scripture for you to ignore again:

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

You say it isn't our Lord's Body and Blood. He says it is. You say that our Lord's Body and Blood are not present in the elements of the Eucharist. St. Paul says they are. I think I'll go with their view rather than yours.

Some Christians do take that literally but here there is a basis for a symbolic comparison. You don't have that with the creation account. Jesus did not think he was a loaf of bread.

Still trying to figure out how you have a literal evening and morning before the sun is created. <Laugh>

A solid exposition would tell you that the sun, moon and stars were created verse one. On the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were 'set', not created. An obvious point, unavoidable from a sound exposition of the text.

Can I read the whole thing, or just the few SDA Approved bits? <ROFL>

A proof text for the existence of Spacemen? Hmmmm...

Equivocation, non sequitur and childish mockery all rolled into one lump. See what I mean about logical fallacies, they are insidious.

 

[Jipsah]

Your equivocating, cosmology, astronomy and creation are separate issues.

Look up "equivocating" and start over.

Some Christians do take that literally

Yep. St.Paul apparently being one of them. Taking the word of God Incarnate literally, imagine that!

but here there is a basis for a symbolic comparison.

We also have what our Lord Himself said. That settles the issue as far as I'm concerned. I long ago dropped the doctrinal tradition that made it necessary for me to make the Word of God of no effect. Your mileage may vary.

Jesus did not think he was a loaf of bread.

Ah, the "But He couldn't have really meant that!" position. But again, it's the tradition you follow that requires you do say that. Same here, once upon a time. No more.

A solid exposition would tell you that the sun, moon and stars were created verse one. On the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were 'set', not created.

So you don't take it literally either, then! Thank you for that bit of candor. We've had that admission from other "7 24 hour days!" proponents as well. Apparently it's sufficient to say that you believe Genesis as written, but unnecessary to actually believe it. It boils down to a demand to at least give lip service to your doctrinal traditions even if you recognize them to be untrue.

Equivocation, non sequitur and childish mockery all rolled into one lump. See what I mean about logical fallacies, they are insidious.

I see lots of people who toss around terms that they don't actually quite understand in the hopes of sounding erudite. It never works. In the end you're banging the table and shouting that your doctrine must be true without offering a shred of actual evidence to back it up. Sorry, not impressed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look up "equivocating" and start over.

Reread your post and get serious.

Yep. St.Paul apparently being one of them. Taking the word of God Incarnate literally, imagine that!

Nonsense.

We also have what our Lord Himself said. That settles the issue as far as I'm concerned. I long ago dropped the doctrinal tradition that made it necessary for me to make the Word of God of no effect. Your mileage may vary.

Yea, that kind of begging the question of proof seems to be convincing for unbelievers.

Ah, the "But He couldn't have really meant that!" position. But again, it's the tradition you follow that requires you do say that. Same here, once upon a time. No more.

A basis of comparison is obvious, no reference to that is telling.

So you don't take it literally either, then! Thank you for that bit of candor. We've had that admission from other "7 24 hour days!" proponents as well. Apparently it's sufficient to say that you believe Genesis as written, but unnecessary to actually believe it. It boils down to a demand to at least give lip service to your doctrinal traditions even if you recognize them to be untrue.

I recognize them to be the real history of humanity, you have me mistaken for some strawman.

I see lots of people who toss around terms that they don't actually quite understand in the hopes of sounding erudite. It never works. In the end you're banging the table and shouting that your doctrine must be true without offering a shred of actual evidence to back it up. Sorry, not impressed.

ditto

 

[BobRyan]

Looks like this has turned into the Spacemen & Flying Saucers discussion

I thought you had your own thread for that - are you bringing that back in here??

Hey, we've got Christians right here in these forums who believe in a flat earth .

Another off-topic idea.

Why not join the thread topic if you are going to post on it -- or start your own thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Amen!

That is exactly right!!

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years



Sadly you don't deal with the facts listed - rather you shell-game to a different list of your own "selection".

And sadly - ice cores are flawed - because of compression. Ring counting has to be "extrapolated" when you get beyond a few thousand. Plus the cold-warm cycles are not limited to just yearly events in climate change - but can be caused by geothermal events and meteorological events ice flows, snow storms etc. Your reliance on "guesswork'-- noted.

 

[BobRyan]

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

See it in living color ---

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... 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."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position