Taking Questions on Genesis

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think God created man?

To love us.

Love requires an object, and there was no object of God's love; so He created us to love.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

 

[46AND2]

To love us.

Love requires an object, and there was no object of God's love; so He created us to love.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Lots of other emotions can fit that bill.

 

[inquiring mind]

“Reasoning” always makes this a difficult question to answer... but God apparently holds “love” above all other emotions. 1 Corinthians 13:13

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, in this thread, I'll take any questions you may have about the events in Genesis, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.

This thread is open to all sorts of stuff, from creatio ex nihilo to the Fall, the Flood, the Dispensations, the Ark, kinds, what language Adam & Eve spoke, anything.

Pray for me.

Why does genesis echo the ancient myth that sons of the gods took human wives and bred a race of giants. Isn't that pure fantasy? See Pages 2-6: autumn 1991 IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK.... Farrell Till Like all literature contem

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does genesis echo the ancient myth that sons of the gods took human wives and bred a race of giants.

Chapter and verse please?

Your question has the element of polytheism in it, and I suspect something is wrong somewhere.

I'm guessing you're going to make a reference to "Hebrew word is ...," but I'll wait for your answer first.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Chapter and verse please?

Your question has the element of polytheism in it, and I suspect something is wrong somewhere.

I'm guessing you're going to make a reference to "Hebrew word is ...," but I'll wait for your answer first.

Actually I gave you a link that explains how Genesis 6:1-6 is referring to sexual relations with angels.

And yes, the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Greek, so those texts would more accurately reflect the original better than a translation.

 

[Aman777]

Why does genesis echo the ancient myth that sons of the gods took human wives and bred a race of giants. Isn't that pure fantasy? See Pages 2-6: autumn 1991 IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK.... Farrell Till Like all literature contem

That's the ancient Theology of men who lived thousands of years before Science. The passage shows that when men (Adam) had daughters, the sons of God (prehistoric people) married and produced Intellectual Giants, because the children had INHERITED Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's. Gen 3:22

 

[Aman777]

Why do you think God created man?

God (The Trinity) always creates Eternally. It takes the agreement of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to "create" men in Christ Spiritually. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 God is currently creating Adam/mankind Spiritually and will continue this until Jesus returns to our planet and fulfills the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31.

God is bestowing Eternal Life upon Humans, the descendants of Adam. Just ask any Gospel preacher. God doesn't want us to live to be a thousand, but forever. Amen?

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay, in this thread, I'll take any questions you may have about the events in Genesis, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.

This thread is open to all sorts of stuff, from creatio ex nihilo to the Fall, the Flood, the Dispensations, the Ark, kinds, what language Adam & Eve spoke, anything.

I have a question.

According to your interpretation of Genesis God created the universe around 6000 years ago, but He created it to look as if it's billions of years old.

So my question is: Why did He make it look old?

 

[dwb001]

I have a question.

According to your interpretation of Genesis God created the universe around 6000 years ago, but He created it to look as if it's billions of years old.

So my question is: Why did He make it look old?

It don't look old to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a question.

According to your interpretation of Genesis God created the universe around 6000 years ago, but He created it to look as if it's billions of years old.

So my question is: Why did He make it look old?

Good question!

Some things won't work unless they are "aged."

Raisins wouldn't be raisins without "due process."

Starting off with embedded age (maturity without history) allowed instant creation to flourish.

 

[partinobodycular]

Raisins wouldn't be raisins without "due process."

I'm not sure what you mean by "due process", near as I can tell you're saying that a raisin should look like it went through the entire process of becoming a raisin, with all the signs of age incumbent therewith. Is that correct?

Now if we extend that line of reasoning to the entire universe, then the universe should look as if it began 13.7 billion years ago, and animals should look as if they evolved over the last 3.7 billion years.

I assume from this that you have no problem with science interpreting the evidence that way, because God intentionally created the universe with all the hallmarks of age that universes should rightfully have?

If this is correct then there's a bigger problem, how do you avoid the claim of "Last Thursdayism". I mean I could just as easily argue that the universe was created on the day I was born, with all the age incumbent therewith, but it's age that never actually happened. It seems to me that my hypothesis would be just as valid as yours.

Why would God do that, create the universe in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from "Last Thursdayism"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would God do that, create the universe in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from "Last Thursdayism"?

I have a challenge thread on Last Thursdayism here:

My Last Thursdayism Challenge

In it, I challenge people to explain Last Thursdayism without violating the literal interpretation of Genesis 5:5.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 

[partinobodycular]

In it, I challenge people to explain Last Thursdayism without violating the literal interpretation of Genesis 5:5.

Whatever point it is that you're trying to make... I missed it.

Why should I care about the literal interpretation of Genesis 5:5? As far as I know the entire bible is a complete fabrication, created out of whole clothe simply to explain the world as it exists today. In my version everything prior to my birth, as with your version about everything prior to 6000 years ago, never actually happened. In my version there was no Jesus. No Moses. No Abraham. And no Adam.

That's one of the problems with "Last Thursdayism", there's simply no viable argument against it, which makes your claims and my claims equally valid.

But that's not really my point. My point is... why would God do that, make a claim about creation that looks exactly like "Last Thursdayism"?

If on the other hand God had simply created the universe over billions of years as it appears... and Genesis described that process in detail, then I for one would be extremely impressed. But as it is, it's "Last Thursdayism" and that doesn't impress me at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's not really my point. My point is... why would God do that, make a claim about creation that looks exactly like "Last Thursdayism"?

Let's bottom-line this and cut to the chase.

If you don't believe in Last Thursdayism, why are you trying to get me to explain it?

I don't believe it either.

If you can't tell the difference between Last Thursdayism and Embedded Age Creation (maturity without history), then I can't help you.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you don't believe in Last Thursdayism, why are you trying to get me to explain it?

Because I'm an eternal two year. If somebody says that you can't travel faster than light... I wanna know why. If they say that I shouldn't wear white after Labor Day... I wanna know why. If they say that God made the universe 6000 years ago instead of creating it 13.7 billion years ago... I wanna know why?

Why did He do that... He's a smart guy... so there must be a reason. I wanna know what it is. Otherwise I can think of some pretty good reasons why somebody might've simply made the whole thing up. So without a rational explanation to the contrary that's the theory I'm going with... somebody made it up.

If you can't tell the difference between Last Thursdayism and Embedded Age Creation (maturity without history), then I can't help you.

That's the problem in a nutshell... there is no difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did He do that... He's a smart guy... so there must be a reason.

Let me say this again.

There is a reason.

Some things needed to be created old, so they could perform functions they couldn't perform young.

Such as trees having mature fruit on them, so Adam & Eve could eat.

Have you seen my Raisin Bread Challenge thread?

 

[partinobodycular]

Some things needed to be created old, so they could perform functions they couldn't perform young.

Such as trees having mature fruit on them, so Adam & Eve could eat.

Fair enough. But I'm going to make an assumption here, that assumption is, that God created things with an "Embedded Age" that they really could've possessed. In other words, although created old those trees could've grown from seeds if God had so desired. There's nothing unnatural or impossible about trees growing from seeds.

But this leads us to another conclusion... if God created the universe with the appearance that it could've begun 13.7 billion years ago... it's because it really could've begun 13.7 billion years ago. God could've started it from a proverbial seed if He had so desired, just like with the trees.

And if God created life with the appearance that it could've begun 3.7 billion years ago... it's because it really could've begun 3.7 billion years ago. Evolution could've happened, even if it didn't happen, and it didn't happen simply because God chose not to begin from seeds.

So the implication is that even if God created the universe 6000 years ago, the Big Bang theory, and the Theory of Evolution may both be correct in that they both describe what could've happened, and the only reason that they didn't happen is that God chose not to begin from seeds.

So there's nothing in Genesis that refutes the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution. Science isn't misinterpreting the evidence, because the evidence says that both life and the universe evolved. The only thing that science is missing is that God chose to begin with "Embedded Age" instead of from seeds.

But I'm still stuck with the question of why. If God could've grown the entire universe from a seed... why didn't He? Was He impatient?

I mean if I were creating a computer simulated universe I could understand skipping the first 13.7 billion years, but God's not a computer programmer, what reason did He have for skipping the first 13.7 billion years?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'm still stuck with the question of why. If God could've grown the entire universe from a seed... why didn't He? Was He impatient?

God showed His mighty power over His creation by doing it the way He did it.

And in fact, the ORDER that He did it in isn't even close to what the Theory of Evolution states.

(Angiosperms before the sun, whales before land animals, etc.)

And I'm sure God knew that, in the end times, cosmic evolution would become the dominant theory.

And this is what He's looking for:

Faith in what the Bible says, not what man says.

I believe that the stronger evolution gets, the more Genesis 1 sticks out as needed to be taken by faith.

If you knew in advance that, in the end times, people were going to leave you and embrace cosmic evolution, would you create the universe according to cosmic evolution?

He wouldn't be the God I know, if He didn't demonstrate His mastery over His creation from time to time.

 

[partinobodycular]

And in fact, the ORDER that He did it in isn't even close to what the Theory of Evolution states.

But all that this says to me is that Genesis is wrong.

Which of course leads to another question... why would so many people believe something which logic and reason says isn't true?

My personal favorite explanation... it says that they're NPC's.