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

[stevevw]

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

Or we just don't understand what the original writers meant back then and are trying to apply modern understandings. The earth and universe seem very old and the Bible is not a science book.

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

Yes I tend to agree

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.

I don't know why people would feel frightened of God being able to engineer creation. It makes sense that not only did create everything but he also created the laws that govern everything which allow His creation to function with order according to nature. But then there must have been a point where God did create something from nothing in the beginning which is beyond naturalistic processes.

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!

Well God is beyond time as we understand it. I gues that is why ories of time so that we can better explain Gods creation.

Science is properly the study of God's Creation.

Yes in many ways it is. That is how science began when theologians wanted to understand Gods creation. But since then it has become a belief in itself where creation itself (naturalism) is the creator.

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

really, I thought that was well and truely shown to be wrong. I guess its a bit like the Flat earth beliefs.

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.

Yes I think the concept of day had more symbolic meaniong back then.

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.

Thats right. Its interesting that even in science some are questioning the concept of time such as with quantum physics.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't know why people would feel frightened of God being able to engineer creation.

Beats me as well. But people do seem to want things set in terms they can understand. They can understand magic; God snapped His fingers and everything appeared . Simple. But if you start thinking about God having designed the universe from subatomic particles to the galaxies and the universe that hold them, and determined how everything works, then that sends them into overload.

It makes sense that not only did create everything but he also created the laws that govern everything which allow His creation to function with order according to nature.

And the idea should make us all hold God in greater awe. But some folks prefer an earth on a dome lidded tray, with strategically placed light bulbs, and everything simple and easily understandable.

But then there must have been a point where God did create something from nothing in the beginning which is beyond naturalistic processes.

Sure. He had to start somewhere.

Well God is beyond time as we understand it. I gues that is why ories of time so that we can better explain Gods creation.

Because being bound by time, it's difficult,an often close to impossible, to understand anyone, even God, not being bound by it.

Yes in many ways it is. That is how science began when theologians wanted to understand Gods creation. But since then it has become a belief in itself where creation itself (naturalism) is the creator.

Yeah, and of course that's nonsense as well. Science is the study of what God has created,end of. But scientists have created the notion that everything "just happened", which is as dumb as the idea that God just created everything by waving His hand. They're actually both dismissing the greatest wonder of Creation, that God did in fact design both the greatest artistic masterpiece and the grandest piece of engineering that will ever exist. "oh, it all Just Happened", and "Oh, God just waved His hand, whole job only took Him six days"are equally as dismissive of thr majesty of the Creation.

really, I thought that was well and truely shown to be wrong. I guess its a bit like the Flat earth beliefs.
Yes I think the concept of day had more symbolic meaniong back then.
Thats right. Its interesting that even in science some are questioning the concept of time such as with quantum physics.

The study of God's Creation never ends, not matter how far down you delve or how high you fly, there are always more marvels to discover. All glory to God!

 

[stevevw]

Beats me as well. But people do seem to want things set in terms they can understand. They can understand magic; God snapped His fingers and everything appeared . Simple. But if you start thinking about God having designed the universe from subatomic particles to the galaxies and the universe that hold them, and determined how everything works, then that sends them into overload.

God is also the God of quantum physical and the Higgs Boson lol. But though science can help appreciate Gods creation in finer detail I also think it can become dogmatic and substitute a naturalistic and materialistic answer. Some things are assumed and as quantum physics has shown the old particle and matter metaphysics may not be necessarily how things are fundementally.

So in some ways there is some counter intuitive aspects to nature as far as cause and effect. Its interesting that the two main issues for the naturalistic view is the very beginning of existence and of life. It seems this is when we really get down to the issue as something cannot come from nothing. But Lawrence Krausse would have something to say about that.

And the idea should make us all hold God in greater awe. But some folks prefer an earth on a dome lidded tray, with strategically placed light bulbs, and everything simple and easily understandable.

Well we know its a sphere and it sits in a pretty special place in what seems an infinite universe. I liked the first pics from Webb showing possibly galaxies as big as ours only a few 100 million years after the Big Bang. That either has to make the universe bigger or science will have to rethink its models. Or maybe theres no beginning. But its an amazing pic showing millions of galaxies and billions if not trillions of stars is such great deatil.

Sure. He had to start somewhere.

Actually I am beginning to think that we don't really know or maybe our models are wrong. There has always been some contradictions that scientists hoped to resolve with more discoveries. But I am not sure we are going to find them. If anything just more anomelies and questions. God is beyond our comprehension and I think that is Gods amazing creation.

Because being bound by time, it's difficult,an often close to impossible, to understand anyone, even God, not being bound by it.

You can say that again

Yeah, and of course that's nonsense as well. Science is the study of what God has created,end of. But scientists have created the notion that everything "just happened", which is as dumb as the idea that God just created everything by waving His hand. They're actually both dismissing the greatest wonder of Creation, that God did in fact design both the greatest artistic masterpiece and the grandest piece of engineering that will ever exist. "oh, it all Just Happened", and "Oh, God just waved His hand, whole job only took Him six days"are equally as dismissive of thr majesty of the Creation.

I think that is the evidence, the experience of awe. It transcends this world. I could imagine when there was a time when human minds were untouched by all the white noise we have today and just gazed up at the night sky. No wonder they thought of God. That has been lost ironically because of the very idea thats claimed to by the true source of knowledge. THough there are some around like Indigenous peoples who have remenants of this.

The study of God's Creation never ends, not matter how far down you delve or how high you fly, there are always more marvels to discover. All glory to God!

Do you think with the discoveries we have made recently with quantum physics, DNA coding and the Webb telescope that we are getting closer to revealing fundemental reality or will this just baffle us more. I often wonder how much further could we go with quantum physics, the Higgs field and Quarks. Is there anything smaller. Maybe its the wrong model. Where does consciosuness come in.

 

[Jipsah]

Do you think with the discoveries we have made recently with quantum physics, DNA coding and the Webb telescope that we are getting closer to revealing fundemental reality or will this just baffle us more. I often wonder how much further could we go with quantum physics, the Higgs field and Quarks. Is there anything smaller. Maybe its the wrong model. Where does consciosuness come in.

Hey, I'm just an old EE watching the state of the art blast by him. <Laugh> But if Heaven is anything like I hope, we'll have forever to study the inner workings pf Creation, and that still may not be enough time!

I enjoy talkng to you bruv. See you when we get There!

 

[Aaron112]

The earth and universe seem very old

I do not think they seem old at all to the Creator, nor are at all old to Him in His View.

 

[Aaron112]

• "I would think if Christ or God wanted everyone saved he would've made it plain and simple. It seems like God doesn't want us to get it."

Well this part is pretty easy.

Well this part is pretty easy.

As written, The Creator made everything simple.

Man /mankind/ came up with many devices.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know why people would feel frightened of God being able to engineer creation. It makes sense that not only did create everything but he also created the laws that govern everything which allow His creation to function with order according to nature. But then there must have been a point where God did create something from nothing in the beginning which is beyond naturalistic processes.

That's a somewhat different topic.

You appear to be addressing the idea "what if we had no Bible giving us the doctrine on origins that we have in the Word of God - what if all along everyone was teaching darwinism? Couldn't God have chosen to use Dawinism is His method of creating all forms of life on Earth?"

And of course we all might agree on that idea that God "could" do it that way if He chose to.

But given that this is not the world we live in - rather we live in the world where the Bible does exist and it does tell us what God chose to do when it came to bringing about life on Planet Earth in all of its forms. Once God picks one of the many options for doing it -- it is very difficult to back the bus up and suppose that He didn't.

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

Keys to accurately understanding Gen 1

For Each day – the events ON that day are identified a follows

1. Events between “and evening and morning were”
2. Events that begin with “And God said LET…”
3. Both must be true – to qualify as an event ON that specific day
4. Ex 20:11 "legal code" in the TEN commandments hardwires the Gen 2:2-4 7 days of creation week to 7 day time frame at Sinai. Which eliminates all the "allegory, poetry, symbolism" attempts to discredit Gen 1-2 - that legal code most certainly does not employ
5. Neither Moses nor his readers were Darwinists – and so were not inclined to insert a bias for Darwinism into the text , having no need to turn it into allegory etc
6. Light is created on day 1 for Planet Earth's reference - such that evening and morning could occur

Keys to opposing Gen 1

1. Ignore the keys to understanding Genesis 1 above.

About Theistic Evolutionism

1. In its purest form it affirms design, plan, direction and specifically the Romans 1 concept of Intelligent design seen by all humans in the things that have been made
2. In its compromised form it makes the distinctively atheist argument against Romans 1 and its statement on intelligent design seen IN nature

 

[stevevw]

Hey, I'm just an old EE watching the state of the art blast by him. <Laugh> But if Heaven is anything like I hope, we'll have forever to study the inner workings pf Creation, and that still may not be enough time!

I enjoy talkng to you bruv. See you when we get There!

You too enjoyed your input.

 

[stevevw]

I do not think they seem old at all to the Creator, nor are at all old to Him in His View.

I think God is beyong our conception of time.

 

[stevevw]

That's a somewhat different topic.

You appear to be addressing the idea "what if we had no Bible giving us the doctrine on origins that we have in the Word of God - what if all along everyone was teaching darwinism? Couldn't God have chosen to use Dawinism is His method of creating all forms of life on Earth?"

And of course we all might agree on that idea that God "could" do it that way if He chose to.

But given that this is not the world we live in - rather we live in the world where the Bible does exist and it does tell us what God chose to do when it came to bringing about life on Planet Earth in all of its forms. Once God picks one of the many options for doing it -- it is very difficult to back the bus up and suppose that He didn't.

Actually I was applying a Darwinian view to Creation but rather trying to understand creation as we see it today in a natural sense. As mentioned the Darwinian theory is outdated in that it takes a gene centric view which gives natural selection all the creative power and is very limited. Whereas some modern understandings take a more wholistic view which includes other influences that are more teleological.

Keys to accurately understanding Gen 1

For Each day – the events ON that day are identified a follows

1. Events between “and evening and morning were”
2. Events that begin with “And God said LET…”
3. Both must be true – to qualify as an event ON that specific day
4. Ex 20:11 "legal code" in the TEN commandments hardwires the Gen 2:2-4 7 days of creation week to 7 day time frame at Sinai. Which eliminates all the "allegory, poetry, symbolism" attempts to discredit Gen 1-2 - that legal code most certainly does not employ
5. Neither Moses nor his readers were Darwinists – and so were not inclined to insert a bias for Darwinism into the text , having no need to turn it into allegory etc
6. Light is created on day 1 for Planet Earth's reference - such that evening and morning could occur

Keys to opposing Gen 1

1. Ignore the keys to understanding Genesis 1 above.

About Theistic Evolutionism

1. In its purest form it affirms design, plan, direction and specifically the Romans 1 concept of Intelligent design seen by all humans in the things that have been made
2. In its compromised form it makes the distinctively atheist argument against Romans 1 and its statement on intelligent design seen IN nature

I am not sure that the days in Genesis are literal. It seems some of the prominent early church figures like Origen and St. Augustine of Hippo did not believe the literal view of Genesis well before science came along. The same with Aquinas who influenced many later scholars and before Darwinism also did not believe a literal view and that Gods creation was an ongoing revelation through nature.

In the time Genesis was written people did not understand the world as we do today. There is a common theme with all the early creation stories from Ancient Near East which have similar ideas to Genesis. Ideas like the Firmament being a solid dome over the earth which seperated the waters above and below the earth because that is how it appeared to them in not having knowledge like today which contradicts this.

There has been a lot of debate about what days represents and not being literal 24 hour periods for creation but as a symbolic way of framing the creation story to help people understand the stages of creation.

There has been debate about the Light created in day 1 and the light of the sun and moon in day 4. They seem like different lights. The Bible also mentions that there will be no sun when Gods Kingdom is established on earth and that Gods Light will shine instead.

It seems the idea of days only comes up for modern understandings based on science whereas I don't think the original understand was based on any scientific conception.

 

[Diamond7]

But still, there are a few sentences and phrases that can stand alone, like the wonderful Romans 3:23-24.

Does it really? There are other scriptures that talks about how the grace of God does a work in us to transform us into the people of God. Yet you talk more about forgiveness than becoming a child of God.

 

[Aaron112]

I am not sure that the days in Genesis are literal.

What man is sure or , or not, really doesn't matter - man's opinions come and go, flit away like a butterfly, here today, gone tomorrow.

The Creator Knows Perfectly, without any spot nor wrinkle. Nothing wrong. Nothing missing.
So we are to seek Him.

 

[Aaron112]

Yet you talk more about forgiveness than becoming a child of God.

Maybe because there are more unrepentant, not children of God, who need to repent ?

 

[Halbhh]

Does it really? There are other scriptures that talks about how the grace of God does a work in us to transform us into the people of God. Yet you talk more about forgiveness than becoming a child of God.

I hope it would be unusual to read carefully through my posts and get a suggestion we only need forgiveness alone, and never need to follow Christ and continue to follow Him, doing as He said (on which I've written, without exaggeration, many hundreds of posts here on CF saying we must do as Christ commanded us to do, I've written this in very many different ways!), -- to obey Him and thus continue to be a child of God.

But the message of the gospel, about forgiveness, is even more crucial for the lost to hear -- it's what saves them, hearing the gospel and then believing.

Both forgiveness and following Christ by doing as He says are crucial.... they are like having both a heart and blood vessels -- a person needs both to live.

 

[Diamond7]

But the message of the gospel, about forgiveness, is even more crucial for the lost to hear

Don't we have to repent first before we can be forgiven?

 

[Aaron112]

Don't we have to repent first before we can be forgiven?

And don't forget what happens even before repenting >> from Romans

"But how can people call for help if they don’t know who to trust? And how can they know who to trust if they haven’t heard of the One who can be trusted? And how can they hear if nobody tells them? And how is anyone going to tell them, unless someone is sent to do it? That’s why Scripture exclaims, A sight to take your breath away! Grand processions of people telling all the good things of God! But not everybody is ready for this, ready to see and hear and act. Isaiah asked what we all ask at one time or another: “Does anyone care, God? Is anyone listening and believing a word of it?” The point is: Before you trust, you have to listen. But unless Christ’s Word is preached, there’s nothing to listen to."

 

[Diamond7]

But unless Christ’s Word is preached, there’s nothing to listen to."

My wife gets upset because I have scriptures that reflect the promises of God all over the place. I want to live and breath the word of God because His Word for us is positive, encouraging and lifts us up from depression and negative thinking.

 

[Aaron112]

His Word for us is positive, encouraging and lifts us up from depression and negative thinking.

Yes, for all who trust Him and obey Him it is LIFE ! Fragrant Aroma of LIFE! (Theistic Life)
No, for all who reject Him, the SAME WORD is the stench of death ! (Theistic Death?)

 

[BobRyan]

Actually I was applying a Darwinian view to Creation but rather trying to understand creation as we see it today in a natural sense. As mentioned the Darwinian theory is outdated in that it takes a gene centric view which gives natural selection all the creative power and is very limited. Whereas some modern understandings take a more wholistic view which includes other influences that are more teleological.

Evolution that follows some sort of plan (as of yet undefined) - is also not in the Bible . As noted before if we wanted to delete the Bible statements on origins and simply "spin the wheel" then wherever it stops - we can then suppose a history where THAT is what God put in the Bible instead of what we have today - well that is certain something God 'could have done' in that alternate universe sort of scenario.

I am not sure that the days in Genesis are literal.

But you provide no argument for why Moses and his readers would insert teleology or any other paradigm into the text given that their own legal code in Ex 20:11 stated it was a literal day just as they had at Sinai "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made". Pretty hard to get around that one. And it maps directly to Gen 2:2-3.

So in addition to all the "evening and morning" problems your view would have in chapter 1, chapter 2 and Ex 20:11 seem to sink the whole idea of "not a literal day" for each day.

\It seems some of the prominent early church figures like Origen and St. Augustine of Hippo did not believe the literal view of Genesis well before science came along.

Augustine did not claim that scripture was bent on not having a literal day for each of the 7 days -- his argument is that no matter what scripture said to the contrary - a 7 day week was WAY TOO LONG for creation week - since God's knowledge and power is infinite. IN other words Augustine was arguing the direct opposite of evolution.

In the time Genesis was written people did not understand the world as we do today.

Which makes it even harder to attribute to them - wild mental gymnastics to be used to get the text away from the literal, direct straightforward rendering of the text - that their own legal code in Ex 20:8-11 demanded.

It seems the idea of days only comes up for modern understandings based on science whereas I don't think the original understand was based on any scientific conception.

The ancient understanding of Moses and his readers would make it impossible for them to argue against the plain reading of the text.

Thus the rule of exegesis - would demand that we admit to the literal 7 day meaning in the text - since it is already written that way and since their own legal code in its summation of the 7 day creation week - demanded it.

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

As I keep noting - a lot of scholarship admits to the intent in the text as written...

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

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.​

 

[stevevw]

What man is sure or , or not, really doesn't matter - man's opinions come and go, flit away like a butterfly, here today, gone tomorrow.

The Creator Knows Perfectly, without any spot nor wrinkle. Nothing wrong. Nothing missing.
So we are to seek Him.

Well yes but you have to ensure you are decern ing the proper interpretation of what was written to be able to know properly what God is saying. That includes understanding the cultural context and time the text is written in. We are placing modern conceptions and often Western ones on those texts.

For example the Bible talks about women and children being treated by what some claim is immoral. Like slavery for instance. But without the cultural and time context this can be misinterpreted.

Genesis says there was a firmament over the earth where the waters were seperated from above and below. This was a common belief with other cultures that there was a literal fixed dome over the earth and that the earth was flat. Now are we to believe this was the case.

Back then people did not have knowledge that we have. They could only understand the world from what they could see. If you look at the horizons it appears like the earth is flat and the sky seems like a dome over the earth. That is the context they were writting in. But then we come along today with our modern conceptions and reinterpret that and thus chanmge the context of the story.