The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[HarleyER]

1 Peter 2:21-23
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

Very nice but completely out of context with our conversation. The verse states "Christ suffered for us" and THIS is our example. We have been called to suffer for others and face persecution, that is, if we wish to live a godly life.

 

[KevinT]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, ...

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

I'd like to add a variant of Gap Theory. It would have an old universe (the universe was created at the time science says), and an old creation of the earth (the matter of our planet could be billions of years old). And then a special creation by God, in 7 literal days, that occurred many millions of years in the past, terraforming a planet that was "formless and void". Mankind lived on the earth for a long time BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned. Adam's age was counted starting from the time he became mortal. All the other sinless people living on the earth at the time Adam and Eve sinned were taken away, similar to when Enoch was taken away.

The "Adam" that was first created by God could be a title, something like "First Man". God made First Man, and he was fruitful and multiplied with "First Woman" and all his descendants inhabited the earth. At some time later, "Adam" sinned. This could be the same person, or perhaps it was another "First Man" -- i.e. the Adam/father of the entire sinful race that followed. So when Adam died at the age of "930", this was 930 yrs after he sinned, not 930 years after the earth was created. OR, it could be that the Adam/First Man that sinned was born millions of years after creation, and was still young when he sinned.

I think this theory is better than Gap Theory because it allows for fossils of fish etc to be millions of years old. I guess in the description of Gap Theory there was mention of our current world being a "Version 2", and all the fossils are from "Version 1". But that seems even more of a stretch.

The downside of this view would be to allow for things to die prior to the sinning of Adam & Eve. I.e. it is dead fish that we find as fossils with old ages. Paul talks about death being introduced through Adam. But perhaps it was only humans that did not die. Even a pre-sin Adam, if his body worked like ours does, would have had skin cells sloughing off and "dying." We wouldn't really count that as death. And thus perhaps a cycle of life, birth, death, and natural selection was a normal part of God's perfect creation, for animals -- and also not considered as death.

I have never heard of anyone else mention such a theory. Has anyone heard of this before? And what do you think of my theory? Is it compatible with Christian Biblical thinking?

 

[davetaff]

So where did we come from according to Gods word we all originated from Noah his three sons and their wives who originated from all those who lived before the flood.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[KevinT]

So where did we come from according to Gods word we all originated from Noah his three sons and their wives who originated from all those who lived before the flood.

Love and Peace
Dave

If you were responding to my post, I would set the timeline like this:

1) Human civilization exists for millennia on earth in non-sinful state
2) Adam and Eve rebel and become the mother and father of all on earth. The non-rebellious people on earth are removed, similar to Enoch's removal.
3) The flood hits the earth, leaving only Noah and his family as survivors
4) Everyone descends from them.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[davetaff]

Hi Kevin thank you for your reply you will need scripture to back up what you say you are most probably right about mankind being on the earth for millennia can be estimated from the ages of the people mentioned

2) Adam and Eve rebel and become the mother and father of all on earth. The non-rebellious people on earth are removed, similar to Enoch's removal.

Can't find anything in scripture to support this the first Adam was created in the image of God in the same way as the last Adam Jesus Christ he would have been the head of the body which would have been a great multitude which was contaminated by the angles that cohabited with the human women and produced giants not part of Gods plan so the first Adam was destroyed in the flood and a new creation began with Noah his sons and their wives

 

[KevinT]

Hi Kevin thank you for your reply you will need scripture to back up what you say you are most probably right about mankind being on the earth for millennia can be estimated from the ages of the people mentioned

2) Adam and Eve rebel and become the mother and father of all on earth. The non-rebellious people on earth are removed, similar to Enoch's removal.

Can't find anything in scripture to support this the first Adam was created in the image of God in the same way as the last Adam Jesus Christ he would have been the head of the body which would have been a great multitude which was contaminated by the angles that cohabited with the human women and produced giants not part of Gods plan so the first Adam was destroyed in the flood and a new creation began with Noah his sons and their wives

"Can't find anything in scripture to support this" --> I agree. I think if scriptures laid it out, then people would have discussed this long ago. I was more trying to think of a plausible back story that was NOT provided, but yet is not contradictory to scripture while also agreeing with physical evidence from the world around us. My plausible back story is probably wrong, but if we can consider that the Bible was trying to teach some important points (God created the world), and is not a scientific treatise that contains every possible fact of what actually happened.

Best wishes,

Kevin

P.S. it is kind of tough reading your posts when they are all one long sentence. Could I talk you into an occasional period("."), so I don't have to be creative and try to figure out where to put one?

 

[KathrynAragon]

I don't know and don't care. The point seems to be in the Bible, that God created all things and that's what I know and believe. To me, the rest is superfluous.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know and don't care. The point seems to be in the Bible, that God created all things and that's what I know and believe. To me, the rest is superfluous.

If the Bible is the Word of God (the way it is presented in Mark 7:7-13) then when the Bible says "A" and an atheist says "Not A - rather it is B" - then one would expect that "details matter".

In Ex 20:8-11 (legal code.. not poetry, not allegory, not symbolism) the Gen 2:2-3 affirmation of the 7 day creation week is explicitly pointed to (such that the very detail that the Bible puts in the creation account that is most unacceptable to atheists is then hard-wired into the legal code of Ex 20:8-11...) it then becomes hard to claim that God told us to ignore the details.

 

[BobRyan]

So where did we come from according to Gods word we all originated from Noah his three sons and their wives who originated from all those who lived before the flood.

Love and Peace
Dave

True.

by 1800 - Earth had finally reached 1 Billion people on the planet
By around 1930 - 2 billion

So basically in just over 200 years the planet went from 1 billion to 8 billion.

World Population Clock: 8.2 Billion People (LIVE, 2025) - Worldometer

How many people are there in the world? World population has reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 according to the United Nations. World population live counter with data sheets, graphs, maps, and census data regarding the current, historical, and future world population figures, estimates...

www.worldometers.info

 

[KathrynAragon]

If the Bible is the Word of God (the way it is presented in Mark 7:7-13) then when the Bible says "A" and an atheist says "Not A - rather it is B" - then one would expect that "details matter".

In Ex 20:8-11 (legal code.. not poetry, not allegory, not symbolism) the Gen 2:2-3 affirmation of the 7 day creation week is explicitly pointed to (such that the very detail that the Bible puts in the creation account that is most unacceptable to atheists is then hard-wired into the legal code of Ex 20:8-11...) it then becomes hard to claim that God told us to ignore the details.

My bible doesn't teach a literal 7-day, 24 hours in a day creation. Resting one day out of seven, yes.

 

[HarleyER]

My bible doesn't teach a literal 7-day, 24 hours in a day creation. Resting one day out of seven, yes.

Could God create everything in a literal 7-day, 24 hours a day creation?

 

[KathrynAragon]

Could God create everything in a literal 7-day, 24 hours a day creation?

Sure but I don't personally believe He did so.

 

[HarleyER]

Sure but I don't personally believe He did so.

If He can do it, what makes you think He didn't do it?

 

[KathrynAragon]

If He can do it, what makes you think He didn't do it?

Well, I am not afraid of science and I believe it supports the bible. Also why would I believe that? Do you believe it, and if so, why?

 

[tampasteve]

If He can do it, what makes you think He didn't do it?

What would be the point? To trip up people that would study the sciences in the future? To create division and atheists due to inconsistencies in what is visually apparent and what some people claim the Bible teaches? It makes far more sense that the days are not meant to be taken literally and to mesh what the Bible teaches us with what we can study and observe. It is far more exciting to discover the world as God designed it and created it to become what it is, learning about the millions of years things have been around, studying the fossils of ancient dinosaurs and ice-age animals, and older animals. Wow, God really designed it in an amazing way, to develop over all this time in such as stunning manner, to be discovered and studied by his greatest creation.


Proverbs 25: 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[HarleyER]

Well, I am not afraid of science and I believe it supports the bible. Also why would I believe that? Do you believe it, and if so, why?

Do you need science to support the Bible? If so, seeing how you are Catholic, you'd certainly would have a problem with the Virgin Mary, wouldn't you?

I believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. I'm not afraid of science, but I certainly don't believe science to be inerrant or the literal Word of God.

 

[HarleyER]

What would be the point? To trip up people that would study the sciences in the future? To create division and atheists due to inconsistencies in what is visually apparent and what some people claim the Bible teaches? It makes far more sense that the days are not meant to be taken literally and to mesh what the Bible teaches us with what we can study and observe. It is far more exciting to discover the world as God designed it and created it to become what it is, learning about the millions of years things have been around, studying the fossils of ancient dinosaurs and ice-age animals, and older animals. Wow, God really designed it in an amazing way, to develop over all this time in such as stunning manner, to be discovered and studied by his greatest creation.


Proverbs 25: 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Do you honestly believe that scientists marvel at creation and praise God for His design?

Romans 1 tells us plainly:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.​

​

Don't go blaming God for the follies of men. People see God in the world around them. Yet they refuse to come to a saving knowledge of Him nor will the acknowledge what He has done. They don't want to. Instead they simply invent reasons for the plain purposes of God.

As far as making "more sense", is it sensible for a man to be in the belly of a fish for three days, the Red Sea being parted, 20,000 people being fed with 5 loaves and 2 fish, a man raising from the dead. Why would you believe in these things (hopefully you do) while saying Genesis isn't talking about a literal seven days? Is a literal seven days more complex to accept then our Lord being raised from the grave?

 

[KathrynAragon]

Do you need science to support the Bible? If so, seeing how you are Catholic, you'd certainly would have a problem with the Virgin Mary, wouldn't you?

I believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. I'm not afraid of science, but I certainly don't believe science to be inerrant or the literal Word of God.

I don't believe that real science is in conflict with the word of God. IF pseudo science temporarily is in actual conflict with the word of God, it won't always be.

The bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years by at least 50 different authors. I don't believe it's all meant to be literal. I think it's easy enough to figure out the writing style from each book. I believe that the bible is a collection of books of spiritual truths, not science books and not history books.

 

[davetaff]

Hi the creation account in Genesis should be understood as starting with Noah it would take 7 days a thousand years long the end result man in the image of God thats Jesus Christ at his second comming as stated in scripture.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

So Christ is man in the image of God the end of creation to say that I am in the image of God is ridiculous the only person who is said to be in Gods Image is Jesus Christ.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[HarleyER]

I don't believe that real science is in conflict with the word of God. IF pseudo science temporarily is in actual conflict with the word of God, it won't always be.

The bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years by at least 50 different authors. I don't believe it's all meant to be literal. I think it's easy enough to figure out the writing style from each book. I believe that the bible is a collection of books of spiritual truths, not science books and not history books.

I see the term "pseudo science" cropping up when people wish to dismiss or discredit things that cannot be explained and discounted. For example, paranormal activities is often credited as a "pseudo science" when, in fact, there are a number of YouTube videos of unexplained paranormal activities. No scientific explanation is given but it is dismissed as pseudo science. In fact, the Vatican is offering exorcism classes for 2024. So clearly they don't discount paranormal activities as pseudo science.

But returning to creation, accepting the creation account as a literal seven day event is, likewise, not pseudo science. It's simply providing another reasonable explanation. The trouble is, there is a chorus of atheist scientists trying to persuade Christians that they are wrong. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into these ideas. There is no proof that what these scientists say is correct-that everything living (e.g. plants, bugs, sea creatures, animals, etc..) all came from the same source and evolved over billions of years. It's all conjecture and, quite frankly, a little silly to think that we all came from the same source as an eggplant or octopus-we just evolved differently. For all the varieties of plants, land creatures, sea creatures to evolved in multiple varieties would have taken far longer than six billion years.

I wouldn't place a great deal of stock in science. We've seen how bias science is with Covid. They can't even admit, or won't admit, where the virus came from. This happens far more often then scientists would like to admit. (Please see Perspectives on Scientific Errors https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230448 ).

Real science is not in conflict with the Word of God. But one cannot interpret the Word of God based upon the latest scientific model tells us which can be wrong. Rather, scientific models must be measured by what the Word of God tells us.