Why did God need so long to make us?

Status
Not open for further replies.

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
43
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Seriously, why did it take God 6 whole days to make everything? why not in an instant? the God i worship is certainly capable of that so y would He need to slowly drag it out over 6 whole days? and why would God need to rest? isn't He God? you believe He needs to rest? i think this whole 6 day thing takes away from the awesome power and glory found in God because He is capable of doing all that in an instant.
 

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟82,302.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Nowhere does Scripture say God "needed" six days to do it, that is an unfounded assumption. God used six days because it was a model for man's work week (Exodus 20:11).

Further, you are not understanding the term "rest" in the correct context. "To rest" simply means "to stop". We still use "rest" in that context today. "The ball came to rest at that bottom of the hill," for example. Does that mean the ball was tired? God "resting" from creation means simply that He stopped creating.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
philadiddle said:
Seriously, why did it take God 6 whole days to make everything? why not in an instant? the God i worship is certainly capable of that so y would He need to slowly drag it out over 6 whole days? and why would God need to rest? isn't He God? you believe He needs to rest? i think this whole 6 day thing takes away from the awesome power and glory found in God because He is capable of doing all that in an instant.

Early on, Augustine thought He did create the world, instantaneously. Same with Anslem, if I recall.

But the typical view is that God created the world with a natural order, and that observation and reason really are useful tools in exploring that order. Hence, Christians of a scientific persuasion.

In response to why He didn't, that is a big question, indeed. I think most responses are speculative at best. But it might be beneficial to point out that God doesn't always act in the most expedient way. There's nothing wrong with expedience, per se, but we can't assume that this is God's philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
43
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
XianJedi said:
God used six days because it was a model for man's work week (Exodus 20:11).
so, the point of the genesis account is that it's a model for man. (well, at least 1 of the points)
Willtor said:
Early on, Augustine thought He did create the world, instantaneously. Same with Anslem, if I recall.
so are u implying that the ppl of that day understood it wasn't meant to be literal? if they could accept it wasn't literal, y can't u?

Willtor said:
But the typical view is that God created the world with a natural order, and that observation and reason really are useful tools in exploring that order. Hence, Christians of a scientific persuasion.
there are many christian scientists who don't buy into YEC. many christian scientists contributed greatly to old earth, old universe, and evolution.

Willtor said:
In response to why He didn't, that is a big question, indeed. I think most responses are speculative at best. But it might be beneficial to point out that God doesn't always act in the most expedient way. There's nothing wrong with expedience, per se, but we can't assume that this is God's philosophy.
so if God doesn't always act in the most expedient way, why is evolution so hard to swallow?
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
philadiddle said:
. . .

so are u implying that the ppl of that day understood it wasn't meant to be literal? if they could accept it wasn't literal, y can't u?

there are many christian scientists who don't buy into YEC. many christian scientists contributed greatly to old earth, old universe, and evolution.

so if God doesn't always act in the most expedient way, why is evolution so hard to swallow?

Good questions.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟82,302.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
philadiddle said:
so, the point of the genesis account is that it's a model for man. (well, at least 1 of the points)
As you stated, there are multiple lessons of the creation account. Yes, the model of the work week is one such lesson.

so are u implying that the ppl of that day understood it wasn't meant to be literal? if they could accept it wasn't literal, y can't u?
There are always people of every time period who have varying views on the interpretation of Scripture. There are people who reject all of Scripture entirely. Just because some people have had that view doesn't mean it's a view we should also embrace.

there are many christian scientists who don't buy into YEC. many christian scientists contributed greatly to old earth, old universe, and evolution.
Same as last point.

so if God doesn't always act in the most expedient way, why is evolution so hard to swallow?
Actually, I would disagree with Willtor's comment. "Expedient" doesn't mean "fastest". It basically means "most suitable for the circumstances". And I would say that God always takes the most suitable course of action.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
from: http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html

Framework Interpretation
Brief Summary:
Provoked by exegetical considerations, the Framework Interpretation sees the Creation Week as a topical guide unconcerned with a real chronology. Dividing the works of Creation into two triads, Moses presents his audience with a literary device to demonstrate theological truths of covenant promises and the role of the Sabbath.

Argument:
Although the fiat creative events ("Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light") refer to actual historical events that actually occurred, and the Creation Week is presented in normal, solar days, the Creation Account really functions as a literary structure presenting the acts in a nonsequential, topical order. The purpose for this is theological.

The Framework Interpretation sees the six creative days dividing easily into two parallel sets of three (that is, two triads). The first triad — Days One, Two, and Three — deals with the creation kingdoms (or realms), while the second — Days Four, Five, and Six — deals with the creature kings (or rulers). A visual representation of this framework follows:

framework.gif


The rulers in the second triad are given rule over their realms (the first triad) at the time of their creations: the luminaries are established to "rule over" the day and night; the birds and fish receive a blessing of dominion over their respective realms ("Be fruitful, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth"); and even man is given this dominion over his realm specifically (cf. Genesis 2:5) and all the created realms generally (Genesis 1:26, 28). These realms and rulers are in turn subordinated as a whole under the divine King of Creation in His Sabbath rest on the seventh day. Just as man works six days and consecrates that work to God's glory on the seventh day, so did God create a model for this by bringing the work of His six creative days under divine consecration to His own glory on the Seventh Day.

Not only does this interpretation see a theological frame in the Creation Week, but it sees no need for chronologization inherent in the text. In fact, the interpretation argues fairly sharply against making the Creation Account into a literal 168-hour sequence. Beside literary support (in the form of parallelism between Days One and Four, the chiastic nature of Days Two and Five, and dischronologization throughout), the Framework Interpretation applies God's seeming use of ordinary providence in Genesis 2:5-6 to demonstrate that such providence is likely active throughout God's creation of the universe.


it shows God nature. providence. provision. kingdoms, man as viceregerent
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
XianJedi said:
. . .

Actually, I would disagree with Willtor's comment. "Expedient" doesn't mean "fastest". It basically means "most suitable for the circumstances". And I would say that God always takes the most suitable course of action.

Expedient just means convenient or practical. The connotations, though, suggest something about human understandings of convenience or practicality. I'm not convinced that this enters into God's paradigm of action. One man considers evolution practical, and another considers it impractical. Both are mistaken, theologically, because each has made himself the arbiter of what God ought to have done. This is backwards.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Go read it again. I never said that.

Yep, I jumped too fast. My apologies.

Expedient just means convenient or practical. The connotations, though, suggest something about human understandings of convenience or practicality. I'm not convinced that this enters into God's paradigm of action. One man considers evolution practical, and another considers it impractical. Both are mistaken, theologically, because each has made himself the arbiter of what God ought to have done. This is backwards.

Wow. The fallacy of personal projection really has its roots deep in the philosophy of YECism, huh.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shernren said:
. . .

Wow. The fallacy of personal projection really has its roots deep in the philosophy of YECism, huh.

I think it is a very human tendency. That's not to justify it. But I was talking to someone at Church, last week, about creation. One of his statements that made me cringe was that God would not use myth. Now, I don't know how he concluded this. He certainly didn't get it from the Scriptures or the Patristic writings. But it is a natural tendency to see objects of disdain, and assume that God shares contempt for them. This tendency must always be fought.

But yes, you're right. It has not been my experience that neo-creationism (to borrow the term from ChaosChristian) takes a deferential stance in its investigations of either God or nature.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.