Why we should believe God created all of Nature, and what that means...

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Not true.

God is fully able to accurately communicate real life events in a vision.

But not about His Body and Blood.

Right.

1. Is it your wild claim that in John 6 people were biting Christ because He said they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.? (Recall that in John 6 there is BOTH the faithFUL group of disciples and the faithLESS group. Which one claimed to have taken Christ literally in John 6 -- "according to the text".

2. Is it your claim that in John 6 people thought they were seeing bread coming down out of heaven??

I don't think that part is hard to figure out at all.

2. Is it your claim that if one accepts Jesus' teaching about eating his flesh - as symbolism while he holds up a piece of bread in front of them and tells them to eat that bread -- then they can not ALSO see that in the Gospels Jesus literally was crucified, literally died, literally buried , literally resurrected according to the Gospels?

Is so - that claim seems to be a bit extreme. What fact do you have for such a conclusion?

 

[BobRyan]

So this is one part of God creating nature and everything. If God created everything that must include sin.

God did not create sin - rather He created intelligent life with the capability of "free will".
That is not the same thing as dictating or programming people to sin.

So the nature of humans is made by God, but also called sin by Religion?

God made human nature sinless and perfect.
God made Angels sinless and perfect.

But he gave both groups free will.

1/3 of the Angels "chose" to sin.
Humans chose to sin and at that point had a sinful nature - a nature bent toward sin.

Humans have children and those children are all born with sinful natures. A bent toward sin as a defect that resulted from the human choice to sin.

God puts a block against the sinful nature in Genesis 3. "I will created enmity between the see of the woman and the seed of the serpent". Between the humans and the kingdom of Satan God put "war" - a supernatural element drawing humans to God even though by nature they are children of rebellion once the fall of man happened.

Did God mess up?

Only if you view God as a programmer ... programming beings to sin, to rebel against Him.

Which makes no sense since He then gave us the Gospel - because that would mean He programmed in evil - just so He could suffer and die for each sin of each person in all of time.

Is religion trying to scare or control people?

I don't get it

You need to read the Bible to see what it actually says. Some stories about God create a false image of Him.

 

[BobRyan]

Explaining evolution doesn't necessarily mean denying God as creator. It could be just explaining how God created everything.

That kind of "Theistic evolution" works best without a Bible.

It needs a Bible that says "in some way over some length of time God created everything - so have faith in God".

That super downsized book of Genesis would be easily adaptable to evolution. Any explanation of details would fit.

Explanations don't create they just explain what is.

The problem is that the Bible "states details" so explicit that no text on evolution tolerates them. So then not one text on evolution says "for in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them".

No text on evolution claims that in 6 evenings and mornings (with each evening and morning being one day) God brought about all life on planet Earth.

I don't see how that is doubted even a little bit.

 

[BobRyan]

My words are not of the flesh,
My Words are Spirit and they are LIFE.

True - Jesus makes that statement in John 6 in the face of the fact that many of his followers were taking His words too literally and leaving him. His faithful disciples stayed with him --- and did not bite Him at all. Rather as Peter said in that same chapter "you HAVE the WORDS of LIFE" -- showing that "he got it".

 

[stevevw]

That kind of "Theistic evolution" works best without a Bible.

It needs a Bible that says "in some way over some length of time God created everything - so have faith in God".

That super downsized book of Genesis would be easily adaptable to evolution. Any explanation of details would fit.

Not really as it depends on how you understand evolution. Certainly the Standard evolutionary explanation is in conflict with Gods creation. But there have been new discoveries that bring the Standard explanation into doubt and actually support creation. Not necessarily in the strict sense of the Bibles story but as there being design in nature. The more we discover the more design we see.

The problem is that the Bible "states details" so explicit that no text on evolution tolerates them. So then not one text on evolution says "for in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them".

No text on evolution claims that in 6 evenings and mornings (with each evening and morning being one day) God brought about all life on planet Earth.

I don't see how that is doubted even a little bit.

BUt then we have to start coming up with explanations to refute the evidence we find of the old earth and universe. Quite often thiose explanation don't make sense and seem to be in contradiction to what we find.

Also from what I understand some believe that the 6 days is a metaphor for a longer period. The authors could not have known about how physics work for example and therefore were giving a allegory of creation rather than a literal one.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
That kind of "Theistic evolution" works best without a Bible.
It needs a Bible that says "in some way over some length of time God created everything - so have faith in God".
That super downsized book of Genesis would be easily adaptable to evolution. Any explanation of details would fit.

Not really as it depends on how you understand evolution. Certainly the Standard evolutionary explanation is in conflict with Gods creation. But there have been new discoveries that bring the Standard explanation into doubt and actually support creation. Not necessarily in the strict sense of the Bibles story but as there being design in nature.

I can add "so then -- in some way God did it so as to show a hint of design in nature of some sort".

But it amounts to the same thing - a very different Bible statement on origins than the one we actually have in the Bible

The more we discover the more design we see.

BUt then we have to start coming up with explanations to refute the evidence we find of the old earth and universe.

Which every evolutionist knows - was never a problem for Moses or his readers or anyone reading the Bible for 1000's of years. It is only a recent issue so you can't "read that back into the text" as if anyone writing or reading it even had that as a concern.

I think we can all see that.

Quite often thiose explanation don't make sense and seem to be in contradiction to what we find.

Again - not a problem Moses or his readers would have considered as valid.

. The authors could not have known about how physics work for example and therefore were giving a allegory of creation rather than a literal one.

So clearly it is literal. None of them were saying "well clearly this is not a true history it is only allegory because we don't understand enough about physics to have been given actual history".

Neither Moses nor his readers would have inserted that idea into the text. I think we all know that.

Which means that exegetically it is an irrefutable fact that the text is stating a 7 day creation week as historically accurate for the doctrine on origins, for the creation of all life on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve. I don't see any way to escape this.

 

[stevevw]

BobRyan said:
That kind of "Theistic evolution" works best without a Bible.
It needs a Bible that says "in some way over some length of time God created everything - so have faith in God".
That super downsized book of Genesis would be easily adaptable to evolution. Any explanation of details would fit.


I can add "so then -- in some way God did it so as to show a hint of design in nature of some sort".

But it amounts to the same thing - a very different Bible statement on origins than the one we actually have in the Bible

I guess it comes down to whether the days in Genesis are literal or not. I mean we know that there is a deep age to the universe so we would have to say that God created the universe to look like its old or created it to have a history of age that was not really there. It seems that if this is the case it sort of doesnt make sense as its acknowledging that creation requires processes that take a long time but at the same time negates this by bypassing them.

I think it makes more sense and also makes creation much more amazing that God allowed creation to develop as it reveals God as the creator of the laws of nature as well as creation itself.

Which every evolutionist knows - was never a problem for Moses or his readers or anyone reading the Bible for 1000's of years. It is only a recent issue so you can't "read that back into the text" as if anyone writing or reading it even had that as a concern.

Yes belief in Gods creation should not come down to science. But at the same time God gave us the ability to reason and we should not disregard that.

Again - not a problem Moses or his readers would have considered as valid.

But then they become valid for us as we are also rational beings. We can use that rationality to discredit other crazy ideas and it works. Are we to say that rationality can be used for everything except creation.

So clearly it is literal. None of them were saying "well clearly this is not a true history it is only allegory because we don't understand enough about physics to have been given actual history".

Neither Moses nor his readers would have inserted that idea into the text. I think we all know that.

Which means that exegetically it is an irrefutable fact that the text is stating a 7 day creation week as historically accurate for the doctrine on origins, for the creation of all life on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve. I don't see any way to escape this.

Not really and this is where reasoning comes in. We have the ebenfit of accumulated knowledge of being able to look back in time and understand the worldview that applied for those times. That meanings were different according to the times. Afterall we don't think the sun revolved around the earth anymore.

The same with the writings of those times about the Bible and how they used symbolic, literary view or allegorical meanings in the context of how people thought back then rather than literal ones. Partly because they knew no better and used stories to convey meaning rather than rationality.

To even take the literal view of creation as being 7 days is to take a modern view because days themselves as in (24 hours) is a scientific conception itself. The idea of days back in ancient times has more meaning than the 24 hour day. It was also symbolic representing other meanings besides literal days.

 

[Aaron112]

Actually in fact the earth may not look old at all. (remember sinful man came up with sinful ideas)
When all the truth is known and the lies thrown out when Jesus returns to rule,
God's Creation Stands Pure and Undefiled as He Created All Things and All Life as He Himself Says.

 

[Jipsah]

And to use symbolism as in John 6

In other words, you don't believe it's factually true.

Then why should you believe anything that didn't come directly from th mouth of God Himself is true?

And to use symbolism as in John 6 - where no one "bites Christ"

To doctor an old song: "Explain it away, explain it away, explain it away, explain it away now". You're still in the curious position of denying that what our Lord said is true.

Oh, it's just a metaphor. OK, let's look at other mataphors. Christ is not the door. Christ is not a lamb. He is not standing at a door and knocking. He is not a lion,and He never attacked anyone's livestock. He is not a rock, and not a vine, no one ever threw Him, and no grapes grew on Him. None of those are true, right?

Anyway, you have to completely ignore, or deny, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 to maintain that particular doctrine intact. That's no less ridiculous than the baseless assertion that the "days" of Creation were 24 hours long, but it still requires you to set at nought the Words of Christ Himself. In the words of the Prophet Buford, "Better you than me, mate".

 

[Jipsah]

1. Day .. evening and morning... "are one day" according to Genesis 1. As everyone knows

Yep, a day and a night. Fairly difficult to reckon when there's no sun, though. Of course, you take the simple expedient of inventing another light source to take the place of the not-yet-created sun. The writer of Genesis didn't mention it, but that was probably just an oversight. Either that or God had one of those watches that has the little sun and moon displays to show whether it's night or day.

2. Neither Moses nor his readers were Darwinists - as everyone on planet Earth pretty much agrees.

Did anyone that we know of ever bite Moses?

Exegesis demands a literal day for each of the 7 days in Gen 1-2.

If you have a kind of gelatinous doctrine to defend, anyway.

4. God says in Gen 1 that he created all life on Earth in that period of time and that He formatted planet Earth with the dividing of oceans and continents, and Sun and moon - all in that 7 day period where He makes "TWO Lights" in the sky on day 4 (not a zillion and two). People can all see that this is what the text says. And no one in Moses' day had any need to "make it" say anything else. So again exegesis demands we admit it.

So may we assume that someone else created the other lights that went unmentioned, or that they were added in the 1.1 revision?

Seems your exegesis (should that have been "eis" rather than "ex"?) is of a very convenient kind. One would almost think it was designed to support conclusions arrived at a priori. Surely not! <LOL>

 

[Jipsah]

I guess it comes down to whether the days in Genesis are literal or not. I mean we know that there is a deep age to the universe so we would have to say that God created the universe to look like its old or created it to have a history of age that was not really there.

In other words, either this stuff is really old, or God is faking us out.

It seems that if this is the case it sort of doesnt make sense as its acknowledging that creation requires processes that take a long time but at the same time negates this by bypassing them.

Yeah, it's really old. God doesn't run scams.

I think it makes more sense and also makes creation much more amazing that God allowed creation to develop as it reveals God as the creator of the laws of nature as well as creation itself.

He created it all, end of. Some folks think it has to be magic, that God just waved His hand. Others actually look at what He did, and realize that there's the He designed and created a work of artistry and engineering far beyond anything we mere creatures can comprehend. Some folks find that frightening, so they keep it to a manageable "He just snapped His fingers and it all happened. I'm here to tell you, this universe didn't "just happen". It was designed and built.

Can we conprehend the time it took? Of course not, time was part of the creation! But to simply say "it took 6 days, each of 24 hours Casio Watch Time" is just nuts. All you have to do is look!

Yes belief in Gods creation should not come down to science.

Science is properly the study of God's Creation.

Afterall we don't think the sun revolved around the earth anymore.

There are a good many here who'll argue that point with you.

To even take the literal view of creation as being 7 days is to take a modern view because days themselves as in (24 hours) is a scientific conception itself. The idea of days back in ancient times has more meaning than the 24 hour day. It was also symbolic representing other meanings besides literal days.

Yeah, an evening and a morning as a day was about as precise as it got. The 24 "hour"day of equal "hours" is a fairly recent development. Certainly one that no would have understood when Genesis was written.

And in the end, how important is the time God spent creating the universe important to a Christian? Nope. We can't hope to understand time as He does anyway. Our Way, Truth, and Life (just metaphors, someone will say) is our Lord Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

"one evening and morning" is "one day" according to Genesis 1. As everyone knows

Yep, a day and a night. Fairly difficult to reckon when there's no sun, though

How nice that no humans were on the planet as Earth rotated before the Sun was created so then NO one actually having that difficulty. And apparently "The earth was rotating as far back as 6000 years ago" which even the atheists would agree with. Wow - who would have thought?

Also this apparently means that infinite God could know how to put a light source on one side of the Earth without first having the Sun's fusion reactions taking place 93 million miles away. Again "who would have thought" God was just that powerful, capable and awesome to do exactly what He said He did. (Apparently Moses and his readers thought God was that awesome as well).

. Of course, you take the simple expedient of inventing another light source

Yes , the idea that according to Genesis 1 - the sun was not there to give light on days 1,2,3 - so some other light source must have been used by God for the "evening and morning effect" on a Planet Earth that was "rotating as far back as 6000 years ago".

hmm that was pretty difficult to conclude - --

to take the place of the not-yet-created sun.

yeah - I wonder if Moses and his readers could figure out that -- without the Sun to provide the "Light" for the "evening and morning" effect -- that "Some other light source" must have been available to infinite God.

As some have noted -- we are moving pretty fast here in our thinking about this point.

The writer of Genesis didn't mention it

Yes - the writer does not tell us how it could be that a light source would provide evening and morning prior to the sun. Only that this is what happened.

The nice thing is that even atheists today will admit that "planet Earth was rotating at the same speed as today - well into 6000 years ago"

, but that was probably just an oversight.

Indeed if Moses was intent and getting every source documented - then he may left out some of these small details in his description of that historic event. I wonder if his readers -- would have objected to the idea that God could provide light from a source that is not the sun, for planet Earth ... for those first three days.

Moses does not mention their having an objection.

Either that or God had one of those watches that has the little sun and moon displays

That was the "other option". I am happy for those that choose that one as well. Everyone has free will.

 

[BobRyan]

Did anyone that we know of ever bite Moses?

sounds like an interesting topic - why don't you start a thread on that one.

 

[BobRyan]

God said He created TWO lights on day 4 not "a zillion and two".

So may we assume that someone else created the other lights that went unmentioned,

Rather we can assume that as vs 1 says - God created everything - is true. Not a giant leap for most of us I suppose.
And we can then conclude that a "zillion" is not "two" -- so then At some other time - God created the stars and day 4 mentions him as the creator of the stars but not by the phrase "let there be stars in the sky" because that would mean that God created them ON day 4.

Another easy observation - but I suppose this is going pretty fast in our thinking on that point. So will leave it at that for this post.

 

[BobRyan]

"This is My Body..."

And to use symbolism as in John 6 - where no one "bites Christ" not even the faithful disciples since it is obviously a symbol
Just as in Matt 16 - leaven and bread are also used as symbols for "teaching".
But day, night, evening, morning, 1 day are all terms that appeared to the readers to mean just what they said in Gen 1-2 such that even the legal code of Ex 20:11 hardwired that timeline to be the same as the 7 day week at Sinai...

In other words, you don't believe it's factually true.

In don't object to symbolism when it is used.

But as even the scholars in all world class universities in the area of Old Testament studies and Hebrew language seem to agree - the text is given as a historic account of a literal seven day event. It is not written as a form of Darwinism by the author. If even they can get this point - I am not inclined to be all that slow in admitting to the same detail.

===============================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

​

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story​

​

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

​

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’​

 

[BobRyan]

hmmm......
well, at least, you did say "apparently" and not factually....

Curious - do you think the earth stopped, when Scripture says the sun stopped ?

Possibly.
That would mean that an all powerful God would have to take care of the inertia problem among other things. But when it comes to an allpowerful God that would be like saying "so then God would have to put the fork on the left side of the plate for a few minutes then move it back to the right side of the plate" as if that was too difficult for him.

 

[BobRyan]

stevevw said:

I guess it comes down to whether the days in Genesis are literal or not. I mean we know that there is a deep age to the universe so we would have to say that God created the universe to look like its old or created it to have a history of age that was not really there.

In other words, either this stuff is really old, or God is faking us out.

Yeah, it's really old. God doesn't run scams.

Or it means that today God can create two planets that are 2 million light years apart and doing so 'is not a scam'.

I guess that is the more obvious alternative.

 

[Jipsah]

And to use symbolism as in John 6 - where no one "bites Christ" not even the faithful disciples since it is obviously a symbol

The really sad part is that it appears that you think that tasteless and pathetic joke is an actual argument against our Lord having meant His words literally.

Just as in Matt 16 - leaven and bread are also used as symbols for "teaching".

Did anyone eat biscuits leavened with teachings? Isn't that the way your "logic:" runs?

But day, night, evening, morning, 1 day are all terms that appeared to the readers to mean just what they said in Gen 1-2 such that even the legal code of Ex 20:11 hardwired that timeline to be the same as the 7 day week at Sinai...

Invented baloney. To have an evening and a morning you have to have a sun. Or as you seem to prefer, invent a sun substitute that the writer of Genesis strangely forgot to include.

In don't object to symbolism when it is used.

Except when it differs from the doctrines you got from you in-house prophet.

But as even the scholars in all world class universities in the area of Old Testament studies and Hebrew language seem to agree - the text is given as a historic account of a literal seven day event.

While the apparent age of the universe makes that idea ridiculous, unless you want to go the even sillier "God made it look old" route.

It is not written as a form of Darwinism by the author.

Could you translate that to English?

If even they can get this point - I am not inclined to be all that slow in admitting to the same detail.

===============================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

Could be. The universe is still a lot older than that. Agaain, wanna go the "God made it look old" route and turn it into a conscious deception on God's part?

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Sonuvagun. Evenings and morning still require a sun.

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

OK, suits me. That isn't what we're talking about, is it?

​

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’​

I'm sure you can poll the professors at an SDA university if there is such a thing, and they'll tell you whatever your doctrine requres on any topic you like.

 

[Jipsah]

stevevw said:

Or it means that today God can create two planets that are 2 million light years apart and doing so 'is not a scam'.

Stick terrestrial geology, and explain the apparent age of the earth. Is it really old, or is God running a scam? I believe it's really old, just as it appears. You lot have to make up stories and dance little sidesteps to "explain" why it looks old but really isn't.

The fact is your doctrine is bogus.
\

I guess that is the more obvious alternative.

The more obvious alternative is that God took as long as He liked to design and create the universe, and His days aren't Casio watch days because He's God and not bound by time as we are. Your doctrine requires a little manageable God who has to obey human rules. You ain't dealing with a Zeus or an Odin here. Time is not of the essence to the Lord God. If the writer of Genesis explained it as though to simple minded children, it's because he was, because the magnitude of the Creation was beyond the grasp of th intended audience, and as is apparent from this thread, in large measure still is.

Does it say this in your Bible?
2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The meaning is obvious - God doesn't reckon time as we do. No surprise that, time is His creation as well, and has no power over Him. You have to deny that, and shout, "No! God is bound by time as we are!" That's simply rubbish.

 

[Jipsah]

1. Is it your wild claim that in John 6 people were biting Christ

It's my wild claim that our Lord meant what He said, whether peple are willing to accept it or nay. Obviously most have been unwilling to accept it. BTW, the "biting Christ" joke is both dimwitted and repellent. Is that the best you can do?

because He said they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.?

What did He say? Why must you constantly evade that?

I don't think that part is hard to figure out at all.

Sure, just follow what your in-house prophet says it really means.

2. Is it your claim that if one accepts Jesus' teaching about eating his flesh - as symbolism while he holds up a piece of bread in front of them and tells them to eat that bread -- then they can not ALSO see that in the Gospels Jesus literally was crucified, literally died, literally buried , literally resurrected according to the Gospels?

You don't believe both are true? It's very sad that you feel you have to discard a truth given by our Lord based on the idea that another truth is somehow better, or supercedes our Lord's own Words. That's what happens when people create doctrines that have no real basis in the authority of our Lord. It's back to the Phariees' "He couldn't possibly have meant that...". Not the company I care to keep.

Is so - that claim seems to be a bit extreme. What fact do you have for such a conclusion?

The words of our Lord for one, and a couple thousand years of Christian belief for another. Nothing your folks would find compelling, apparently.