• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
16,654
6,328
✟367,779.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
To fully believe in God is so much more than just believing God is behind a few things...

God is the creator of all things John chapter 1 tells us -- and that means (as the words say) everything

In Genesis we read the "Sons of God" went down to Earth and took human women as wives and bore these monsters called the "Nephilim"

In the Book of Enoch, the Sons of God or the "Watchers" did more than just procreate with human women and create these giant monsters, they also "defiled" nature - God's creations - birds of the air, etc.

The "dog-eat-dog" system we find in nature is probably not God's original design in nature and certainly NOT His ultimate plan but the result of the corruption made by the Watchers. In the New Earth, the lions and the lambs will be able to sleep together.

The "Watchers" are non other than the Angels. Some are good, some are bad, the bad ones are the fallen angels

Our world worships the Angels (the fallen ones), thus the symbol of the "watchers" is very popular:

images
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Evolution that follows some sort of plan (as of yet undefined) - is also not in the Bible .
That is why we need the Bible and Science. Esp Science is based on Physical Evidence that we do not always have in the Bible. We read about walls of Jericho, but Science actually goes to Ancient Jericho where we can see the wall that we read about in the Bible. In sunday school the first thing we teach them is about Joshua and the battle of Jericho.


1695974406586.png
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
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.
If the parents sold a child into slavery it was because they did not have the food to keep them alive. Also slavery was only 7 years.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,734
1,681
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟316,239.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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 saying there is not plan or purpose to Gods creation thus teleology. According to the naturalistic and materialist view there is no purpose. But we know Gods plan for us according to the BIble. Some people like to discover the details of that plan by how His nature works. Thats why I mention that discoveries are showing that plan by how nature is designed for certain outcomes over others. Its what we should expect of God.
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.
As mentioned the 7 day work week may have been the way creation was framed to help people back then to present the different stages and message of Gods creation. Using this model can allow for long periods of time for each day. It seems the number 7 was symbolic for a number of things.
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.

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.
Actually you are correct that Augustine was saying creation was not set by 7 days or any time period but happened instantly because God could not be confined to uman conceptions of time. But he also said that from that instant creation life developed into a more mature state like a seed develops into a tree. He was actually supporting the idea that life came from water and the earth and evolved into what we have today. That the seed of life had the blueprint for the creation of all living things.
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.
Not really as there are examples where the idea of a literal 24 hour day doesn't make sense and even implies a longer period. For example God rested on the 7th day seems to imply more than a 24 hour day and is in fact still ongoing. Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 seem to tell us that God’s Sabbath rest remainscontinues. The idea of limiting God to having to rest for 24 hours seems to imply a human conception and limiting God as a human needed to rest and recover. It seems that Gods working week is different to humans and that its an analogical reading.
As I keep noting - a lot of scholarship admits to the intent in the text as written...
And a lot don't. In fact some of the great theologians of ancient time well before science and evolution came along to have its influence thought that creation was longer than 7 days. They had no reason to try and conform Genesis to modern ideas of understanding but rather just what the Bible seem to imply.
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'.
If you notice they often reject the miracle/supernatural aspects. But then they often reject the rest because of this. But I think just because we may say creation involved longer times because the expression of Gods creation was a process doesn't take the miracle/supernatural aspect out of it. We have to remember we are talking about the creation of life and everything from nothing and no matter how that happened its still something beyond material naturalism.
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.​
I would have thought there were just as many who think the days are not literal. I mean the entire Catholic church, the representation of GOds church on earth, the continued same church from the disciple Peter supports a form of evolution. So most of these great scholars disagree.

Its certainly a divided issue and at best I don't think we can know for sure and I don't think it matters so much so long as we believe that GOd is the creator of all things regardless of how He done it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,734
1,681
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟316,239.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If the parents sold a child into slavery it was because they did not have the food to keep them alive. Also slavery was only 7 years.
Yes so it is the conext of those times that help us understand. The conext for that time for example was different to say black slavery of the 18th century. Therefore understand the context for what was written in Gensis also helps us understand how people seen things back then. They were not writing in todays terms.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I am not saying there is not plan or purpose to Gods creation thus teleology. According to the naturalistic and materialist view there is no purpose. But we know Gods plan for us according to the BIble.
If we accept the Bible as the Word of God - then the first thing we find in it is that God already has a teaching/doctrine on origins for all life on planet earth --- telling us that it all came about as an act of infinite power in a 7 day week that the legal code of Exodus 20:8-11 says is the same time frame as the 7 day week at Sinai.

So then we get the idea that the Earth was still rotating at more or less the same speed - 6000 years ago as it does today.
Some people like to discover the details of that plan by how His nature works. Thats why I mention that discoveries are showing that plan by how nature is designed for certain outcomes over others. Its what we should expect of God.
I agree that if someone chooses to reject the Bible and instead of what it tells us about origins - to look at nature and true to deduce/infer what the origins must have been - that they could at least get to "some details" that are not wrong even if many turn out to be wrong in that path of guesswork.
As mentioned the 7 day work week may have been the way creation was framed to help people back then to present the different stages and message of Gods creation
And that's the problem. Once we admit that using the accepted method of exegesis then the Bible does actually teach a 7 day creation week that was more or less the same as the week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-11 -- then belief in an opposing doctrine on origins based primarily on guesswork is admitting that we are rejecting what the Bible actually teaches about origins and trying to guess our way along no matter how our guesses contradict what God says He actually did.

2 Pet 1:21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Tim 3:15
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching (doctrine), for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;


. Using this model can allow for long periods of time for each day.
I agree that we could insert the idea of guessing, and the idea that scripture is not God but is man coming up with a best guess, or that God deliberately stated things without accuracy, technically very very wrong -- so that people who struggled with the concept of time longer than a week could grasp the general idea.

But in Gen 1-9 we see life spans of humans that are not weeks long - but rather 900 years long. The idea that mankind could only understand 1 week of time is not supportable. Not only that but given that it is successions of lives one after another - it means that the Bible writers could understand thousands of years as a timeline. So the idea of writing "In many many thousands of years of time - God created the heavens and earth" was very much in the domain for language and understanding in the OT.

The idea that "one week" was their most accurate stab at it - does not fly very far.
Actually you are correct that Augustine was saying creation was not set by 7 days or any time period but happened instantly
Indeed. His argument is even less compatible with the orderly progression of evolutionism than is the real , literal Bible details and nothing in the Bible text of Gen 1 and 2 or in the summary of it in Ex 20:11 legal code even remotely suggests what Augustine just made up off the top of his head.
Not really as there are examples where the idea of a literal 24 hour day doesn't make sense and even implies a longer period. For example God rested on the 7th day seems to imply more than a 24 hour day
Well in the legal code for it -- that summarizes it - we see it is most certainly one day

Ex 20:8
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It does not give the reader the idea that it was a "seventh - but never ending day"
and is in fact still ongoing. Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 seem to tell us that God’s Sabbath rest remains continues.
It says it "remains for the people of God" in Heb 4 -- and as noted above - the summation for the Gen 2 statement in Ex 20:11 makes it clear that it is a day.
The idea of limiting God to having to rest for 24 hours seems to imply a human conception
First of all humans did not make that up. God is the one that describes himself that way. And says that His actions obligate mankind.
But for the context of this thread the only issue we have is the time - the fact that these are days just like the 7 days at Sinai. That's the problem for evolutionism. And what is worse - evolutionism does not fit into 6 literal days where all life is completed - and a rest for the 7th day no matter how long you make that day.


And a lot don't. In fact some of the great theologians of ancient time well before science and evolution came along to have its influence thought that creation was longer than 7 days.
The issue is the text itself - and not that some odd group thought this or that. If you look at my signature line you will find that almost every Christian denomination on the planet accepts the 7 day week format from the OT.
If you notice they often reject the miracle/supernatural aspects. But then they often reject the rest because of this.
No doubt non-Christians have a lot of freedom to admit what the text says and then comment that they reject anything the Bible says that does not fit their bias. Still, they can read it and see what it says.
But I think just because we may say creation involved longer times because the expression of Gods creation was a process doesn't take the miracle/supernatural aspect out of it.
What it takes is the assurance that the Bible is inspired by God and not a bunch of stories, or best-guesses-for-ancient-man.
We have to remember we are talking about the creation of life and everything from nothing and no matter how that happened its still something beyond material naturalism.
We agree on that. The issue is the fact that we are not talking about "What IF we had a Bible with the book of Genesis and the doctrine on origins" in it. We are talking about the fact that we already HAVE a Bible with the book of Genesis and the doctrine on origins in it. That is "the rub" as they say.
I would have thought there were just as many who think the days are not literal. I mean the entire Catholic church, the representation of GOds church on earth, the continued same church from the disciple Peter supports a form of evolution.
Even they argue that in the Ten Commandments it is a real 7 day week.

Mark 7:7-13 is Jesus' response to efforts to downsize-tweek-edit the Bible based on popular tradition of the day.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
telling us that it all came about as an act of infinite power in a 7 day week
Why would it take God a whole week? Could he not create everything in an instant, in the blink of an eye? Also I wonder if God is a trickster because the evidence He gives us shows that the first day was 9 billion years. Or according to Gerald Schroder one trillion days.

Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,734
1,681
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟316,239.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If we accept the Bible as the Word of God - then the first thing we find in it is that God already has a teaching/doctrine on origins for all life on planet earth --- telling us that it all came about as an act of infinite power in a 7 day week that the legal code of Exodus 20:8-11 says is the same time frame as the 7 day week at Sinai.

So then we get the idea that the Earth was still rotating at more or less the same speed - 6000 years ago as it does today.

I agree that if someone chooses to reject the Bible and instead of what it tells us about origins - to look at nature and true to deduce/infer what the origins must have been - that they could at least get to "some details" that are not wrong even if many turn out to be wrong in that path of guesswork.

And that's the problem. Once we admit that using the accepted method of exegesis then the Bible does actually teach a 7 day creation week that was more or less the same as the week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-11 -- then belief in an opposing doctrine on origins based primarily on guesswork is admitting that we are rejecting what the Bible actually teaches about origins and trying to guess our way along no matter how our guesses contradict what God says He actually did.

2 Pet 1:21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Tim 3:15
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching (doctrine), for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;



I agree that we could insert the idea of guessing, and the idea that scripture is not God but is man coming up with a best guess, or that God deliberately stated things without accuracy, technically very very wrong -- so that people who struggled with the concept of time longer than a week could grasp the general idea.

But in Gen 1-9 we see life spans of humans that are not weeks long - but rather 900 years long. The idea that mankind could only understand 1 week of time is not supportable. Not only that but given that it is successions of lives one after another - it means that the Bible writers could understand thousands of years as a timeline. So the idea of writing "In many many thousands of years of time - God created the heavens and earth" was very much in the domain for language and understanding in the OT.

The idea that "one week" was their most accurate stab at it - does not fly very far.

Indeed. His argument is even less compatible with the orderly progression of evolutionism than is the real , literal Bible details and nothing in the Bible text of Gen 1 and 2 or in the summary of it in Ex 20:11 legal code even remotely suggests what Augustine just made up off the top of his head.

Well in the legal code for it -- that summarizes it - we see it is most certainly one day

Ex 20:8
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It does not give the reader the idea that it was a "seventh - but never ending day"

It says it "remains for the people of God" in Heb 4 -- and as noted above - the summation for the Gen 2 statement in Ex 20:11 makes it clear that it is a day.

First of all humans did not make that up. God is the one that describes himself that way. And says that His actions obligate mankind.
But for the context of this thread the only issue we have is the time - the fact that these are days just like the 7 days at Sinai. That's the problem for evolutionism. And what is worse - evolutionism does not fit into 6 literal days where all life is completed - and a rest for the 7th day no matter how long you make that day.

The issue is the text itself - and not that some odd group thought this or that. If you look at my signature line you will find that almost every Christian denomination on the planet accepts the 7 day week format from the OT.

No doubt non-Christians have a lot of freedom to admit what the text says and then comment that they reject anything the Bible says that does not fit their bias. Still, they can read it and see what it says.

What it takes is the assurance that the Bible is inspired by God and not a bunch of stories, or best-guesses-for-ancient-man.

We agree on that. The issue is the fact that we are not talking about "What IF we had a Bible with the book of Genesis and the doctrine on origins" in it. We are talking about the fact that we already HAVE a Bible with the book of Genesis and the doctrine on origins in it. That is "the rub" as they say.

Even they argue that in the Ten Commandments it is a real 7 day week.

Mark 7:7-13 is Jesus' response to efforts to downsize-tweek-edit the Bible based on popular tradition of the day.
It seems most of the above comes down to one verse Ex 20:8-11 to make the arguement for 24 hour days in Gensis. Yet in the same way we could make arguements for why not to take Genesis literally. As mentioned Genesis alludes to an actual solid dome over the earth. THis could not have been the case so is based on the limited understanding at the time. So there was no literal dome over the earth.

As mentioned the Bible also alludes to the 7th day being more than 24 hours. Psalm 95 mentions because people did not acknowledge God as the creator they will not enter 'Gods rest' implying His rest is still happening even today and always. Hebrews 4 also mentions some who have disbelieved will not enter Gods rests and relates this to Gods creation
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”
And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.”

Miles Van Pelt observes:

In Exod 20:11, the command for the people of God to remember the Sabbath day is grounded in God’s pattern of work and rest during the creation week. The people of God are to work for six solar days (Exod 20:9) and then rest on the seventh solar day (Exod 20:10). If, therefore, it can be maintained that God’s seventh day rest in Gen 2 extends beyond the scope of a single solar day, then the correspondence between the “day” of God’s rest and our “day” of observance would be analogical, not identical. In other words, if day seven is an unending day, still in progress, then our weekly recognition of that day is not temporally identical. As such, there is no reason to maintain that the same could not be true for the previous six days, especially if the internal, exegetical evidence from Genesis 1 and 2 supports this reality.

Genesis 2:4: also alludes to more time than 24hours when it says “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

Genesis 1:1 is also said to be a Creation act itself in creating everything out of nothing rather than a summary of what follows. Rather its a background statement about how the universe and earth came to exist. Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of everything “visible and invisible” which corresponds with (Col. 1:16) while Genesis 1:2. is focusing upon the “visible.” Then the rest of creation seems to be the preparing and making the earth for its inhabitants.

This seems to be supports by Joel 3:15-16 which mentions the “heavens” encompasses the sun, the moon, and the stars. Genesis 1:2 tells us that the earth which was already created was without form and void, that darkness covers the waters, and that the Spirit is hovering over it.

If Genesis 1:1 is not an act of creation then where did the earth, waters and darkness come from mentioned in Gensis 1:2.

If the Bible doesn't contradict itself then the above verse cannot be a single day. It implies that creation was one act as though its a coverall for all creation. So here we have a contradiction is the days are to be taken literally as 24 hour days. As already mentioned if the sun was not created until day 4 then where did the light come from in Genesis 1:3?

The Hebrew construction of "let there be" as in let there be light or let there be seasons is not used as 'something being created' but rather its about giving something a function or purpose. So the light, sun and moon were created in Gensis 1:1 but were given function is Genesis 1:13, 14, 16.

Genesis 2:5-7 seems to assume it was more than one calenda day when it mentions that there was no plants and shrubs on day six because there was no rain or humans to tend to the plants and shrubs. The wording seems to allude to a longer period of seasons rather than one 24 hour day.

 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,919
7,129
70
Midwest
✟364,959.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All nature?
With the Feast of St, Francis approaching:

"For as of old the three children placed in the burning fiery furnace invited all the elements to praise and glorify the Creator of the universe, so this man also, full of the spirit of God, ceased not to glorify, praise, and bless in all the elements and creatures the Creator and Governor of them all.

"What gladness do you think the beauty of flowers afforded to his mind as he observed the grace of their form and perceived the sweetness of their perfume? For he turned forthwith the eye of consideration to the beauty of that Flower which, brightly coming forth in springtime from the root of Jesse, has by its perfume raised up countless thousands of the dead. And when he came upon a quantity of flowers he would preach to them and invite them to praise the Lord, just as if they had been gifted with reason. So also cornfields, and vineyards, stones, woods, and all the beauties of the field, fountains of waters, all the verdure of gardens, earth, and fire, air and wind would he with sincerest purity exhort to the love and willing service of God. In short he called all creatures by the name of brother, and in a surpassing manner, of which other men had no experience, he discerned the hidden things of creation with the eye of the heart, as one who had already escaped into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Chapter 29 The First Life of St. Francis


Rather than viewing creation as something exploit and pillage, what if we viewed it as a sibling?

But then her am I with a vehicle and gas oven. It comes down to our need for energy. We are dependent on our gas, coal, and even "sustainable ' sources of energy turn out to be not that carbon neutral.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Don't we have to repent first before we can be forgiven?
:) Yes, precisely -- that's a central part of the "gospel message". So, when you hear the words "gospel message", you are hearing a reference to repentance and relying on Christ in faith for salvation. Repentance is to admit our wrongs to God and rely on His Grace for forgiveness -- which is what we do when we repent/admit that we need Christ to save us from our sins (through Christ we can be forgiven of all of our sins at once, in total!).
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
11,014
6,437
Utah
✟851,751.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To fully believe in God is so much more than just believing God is behind a few things...

God is the creator of all things John chapter 1 tells us -- and that means (as the words say) everything


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.



So, God created everything of nature...

That means not only the things in nature, but also nature itself, the design of nature -- how nature works -- all aspects of nature!

Anything in it. So, photosynthesis, but more...

Electrical fields/currents... Gravity. Magnetism.

Chemistry.

Every aspect -- all of physics and chemistry.

Therefore all things that happen naturally through the design of nature -- everything that happens in and of physics, chemistry -- is simply Nature doing what God made it to do.

So that all of creation then unfolds and works, like a flower unfolding from a seed, by His design.

Many think (I'm not alone in this) that also at times God intervened during the special preparation of Earth in particular. (for example, He might have chosen to let certain asteroids and comets hit Earth, but not others, deflecting the ones He didn't want to be part of Earth...)

So, then you have both nature operating as God made it to do, and also additionally He intervened at times to make Earth a perfect home for us.

That all is 'creation' and it's also all natural events, including all natural events -- there's no difference! Geology, you name it -- it's all merely part of creation, just like chemistry or gravity, etc.

The entire debates about science vs creationism comes from a mistaken premise: the false premise that if nature works wonderfully for life -- when we see that nature can cause and support living things -- that somehow that is wrongly thought to mean that God didn't do that....

It's an irrational premise really.

Anyone should consider the opposite idea, which makes a lot more sense: God existing would certainly make nature work perfectly to support/give rise to life....

Like we read in Genesis 1:11

11 Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation..."


That means anyone trying to argue any natural thing (even any evidence of evolution) would somehow disprove God is not believing in God, or perhaps not fully assuming that God is God.... The Creator of all of Nature.

To argue that any evolution would disprove God is very much like trying to argue that the Earth being an oblate sphere proves God doesn't exist (since certain verses read in isolation can be suggested to be read to suggest the Earth is flat, if you come to the text with that idea ahead of time.... but if we read the bible through (instead of only isolated verses) -- full reading -- with more a listening attitude, then we don't miss the meaning in full context.)

-------

We read in the bible that God uses visions to communicate, more than any other way.

3 The boy Samuel ministered before the Lord under Eli. In those days the word of the Lord was rare; there were not many visions. -- 1 Sam 3:1

Of course, as you know from reading it, the Bible has very many visions in it, not just given only to prophets like Isaiah or Ezekiel, but to very many.

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord,
reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams."


Numbers 12 NIV


As we know, of course, the person who received the revelation from God written down in Genesis chapter 1 was not actually there in person -- the writer was not there in the beginning (Christ was, but not any mortal human!).

So, Genesis chapter 1 is of course revealed to us through a mortal human being who was given a revelation from God...

Genesis chapter 1 has both visually seen parts and also literally spoken words from God, both.

See it --

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The person receiving this then would see some of it, (as in a vision) -- visually see some key things that happened -- and also hear some spoken words from God, which are in quotation marks for us.

Both.

3 And God said, Let there be light,and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version


So, as you see, we are reading the actual spoken Words from God here -- literally spoken words!!! (They are in quotation marks.)

Let's read some more visions to notice that happening.


Peter’s Vision
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. ...

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 10 - New International Version


We also read in the Bible over and over someone receiving a vision, but not at first fully understanding it (or not in all ways) (or even sometimes not at all) for a time!


----
8 During the night I had a vision, and there before me was a man mounted on a red horse. He was standing among the myrtle trees in a ravine. Behind him were red, brown and white horses.

9 I asked, “What are these, my lord?”

The angel who was talking with me answered, “I will show you what they are.”

Bible Gateway passage: Zechariah 1 - New International Version



----

So, we can expect it's likely that person given the amazing creation vision in Genesis 1 would not naturally be able to understand every aspect of what he was seeing immediately, but would be given to understand the most important things (or soon): that God created all that is, and made Earth a "good" and a "very good" home for us!....

Let's think about how the person first seeing this vision would not entirely understand every aspect of creation, just like Peter didn't at first understand above....

How could anyone thousands of years ago understand seeing Earth as being entirely a water world for example!?

How could anyone understand seeing an ocean that it meant that all the Earth was for a time just oceans....

How would they be able to know that seeing an ocean vision was about the entire Earth?

They could know -- we can know -- only when God helps us to understand.

Thus in the vision, we are given spoken words to explain this...the passage of time is shown with 'days' with a morning and evening.

That's
familiar: morning time and evening time: I can understand this vision now -- it's here on Earth, and this is a day!....

In this way, the person receiving this amazing vision that would have been beyond their comprehension could begin to understand it was Earth he was seeing, being made.

And time is passing. In fact, we read that the reason we live under a wonderful starry sky instead of for instance a blank grey dome overhead is to help us notice the passage of time (in our mortal bodies: that we haven't forever in these bodies, and we should realize time is fleeting here...):

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years..."

Time is passing, Earth is changing, then, the vision conveys to the wondering person seeing these amazing sights...

Of course, God can do all things, and doesn't have to work slowly, but could make Earth in 1 day, or 1 hour.....

But that would be less beneficial to us. It's better if we can notice that God is blessing us with work over time to make Earth a wonderful blessed home (initially) for us....

So, in this vision, creation is shown in a way we can understand.

It's understandable to us mortal humans. According to what people can understand.

For example, when Christ told the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the words Christ chose for that audience listening at that moment in time (all descendents of Abraham) is that literally-rendered Lazarus goes to be in the "bosom of Abraham" (in the most word for word literal translation):

"And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers into the bosom of Abraham—and the rich man also died, and was buried;"
Luke 16:22

Of course, heaven isn't mainly just to be at Abraham's side, nor is Abraham the central gathering person around which heaven will be... But Christ spoke in a way his listeners could understand at that moment in time.

So God also spoke words in Genesis 1 to make it clear to us that Earth was being formed/changed over time.

And the main thing we get repeated 7 times: that our home was made to be "good" for us. "Very good"....

The spoken words are enough to help make it clear -- God made our home Earth -- everything. And made it wonderful, a truly wonderful place to be.

----------

Here it's good to be sure to be clear -- visions aren't like a mere video recording or mere photograph. (it would be a disrespectful cartoon version of God to claim so!)

Of course God didn't need to set up a recorder/camera and record creation scenes so He would be able to later replay the recording for the person given this revelation in Genesis 1....

Instead, all visions are actually given from God -- He creates the vision for us.

The vision itself is created.

Made in a way so that we can (eventually) understand what we never could otherwise understand.

An actual video recording would have been even harder to comprehend we can guess....too distracting with too many details that aren't the main point.

A vision is always a kind of stylized representation of something important. A created scene.

As a parallel analogy, visions are more like (analogy) something drawn by hand or such -- in analogy, more like an drawing or animation drawing than like a video recording or photo from a camera, in the sense they are entirely created and won't have too many endless details that are beside the point being communicated.

They are stylized representations you could say. They are like something, instead of being a photo recording of something.

The Genesis 1 revelation is such a wonderful vision of course, and reading it can lift us up out of our base mind into a higher state of mind, ready to hear God's words to come in the scripture....

We should always take a time to sometimes read to just listen to the chapter, without thinking about any debate or doctrinal thing we heard, etc.

---------

That's the main best thing we must gain from Genesis 1 -- just pure listening to hear and be lifted up, ready to continue reading the word....

I hope if anyone ever listens to anything about Genesis 1, they will take from this that we should occasionally read even this chapter we've read 10 or 20 times already with just pure reading to just listen (to lay aside all previous and other stuff, even our own ideas or doctrines, and just purely listen to God's word). It's so wonderful!
If I'm understanding you correctly you are putting forth the idea the the creation account was given in "vision" ... there is nothing that states this. On the contrary ...

Jesus affirmed the creation account that Moses wrote about.

Exodus 20:8–11 is the keystone text (after Genesis 1) that asserts six-day creation:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. … For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Scriptures go further than merely depicting a six-day timeframe for God’s creative activity.They plausibly assert it self-referentially.
This clearly depicts God asserting six-day creation, and it also has Him asserting that the Israelite work week was patterned after God’s creation week.

Creation as in Genesis being literal was reaffirmed by God to Moses face to face on mount Sinai.

Before the word of God began being codified (written down) ... the knowledge was passed along orally. Beginning with Adam and Eve.

There was a lot of knowledge that was passed down orally until written language was developed.

People tell about things that happened and write about them ... often later ... do you think Adam & Eve didn't verbally tell about what happened (how they were created) and they didn't pass that along to their decedents? Of course they did ... we all pass along our experiences in life. Are we to believe the event of Cain and Able and all the rest of Genesis was given in vision? Of course not.

One can't just decide which parts of Genesis are literal and which are not. Some being "visions" ... some not ... unless it's specified as such.

Genesis is clear .... creation happen in 6 literal days ... one can accept that .... or not.

The 7th day Sabbath seals the 6 literal days of creation .... with a literal day.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I'm understanding you correctly you are putting forth the idea the the creation account was given in "vision" ... there is nothing that states this. On the contrary ...

Jesus affirmed the creation account that Moses wrote about.

Exodus 20:8–11 is the keystone text (after Genesis 1) that asserts six-day creation:



The Scriptures go further than merely depicting a six-day timeframe for God’s creative activity.They plausibly assert it self-referentially.
This clearly depicts God asserting six-day creation, and it also has Him asserting that the Israelite work week was patterned after God’s creation week.

Creation as in Genesis being literal was reaffirmed by God to Moses face to face on mount Sinai.

Before the word of God began being codified (written down) ... the knowledge was passed along orally. Beginning with Adam and Eve.

There was a lot of knowledge that was passed down orally until written language was developed.

People tell about things that happened and write about them ... often later ... do you think Adam & Eve didn't verbally tell about what happened (how they were created) and they didn't pass that along to their decedents? Of course they did ... we all pass along our experiences in life. Are we to believe the event of Cain and Able and all the rest of Genesis was given in vision? Of course not.

One can't just decide which parts of Genesis are literal and which are not. Some being "visions" ... some not ... unless it's specified as such.

Genesis is clear .... creation happen in 6 literal days ... one can accept that .... or not.

The 7th day Sabbath seals the 6 literal days of creation .... with a literal day.
Wait a moment! I've repeatedly quoted and said that creation was done in 6 days, quoting the text at length, and referring to the 6 days and individuals days and so on....

Look, to respond at all to what I said about the revelation of Genesis 1, you'd need to read through fully through the OP post after the break line '----------' so to know what is said there (more than just 1 thing).

Else you'd only be responding about your own possibly incorrect guessing at what I might have said (as it seems you did here, trying to convince me that Genesis 1 is legit, etc. -- I've explained among other things why everyone should totally believe Genesis 1 in full...)

So, therefore, you'll have to read that post fully if you wish to discuss what it says, because otherwise you'd and be only be responding at times so various guesses you have imagined about what I'd said (I'm sure I've also done that mistake plenty), not knowing the actual very different things (more than 1) which the post is actually saying.

You can't even discuss the OP post without reading it well, really. Maybe I should add a warning at the top of the OP post about that -- that it will not be what people are expecting/guessing....

You've given a very reasonable response to a very very different post someone else made somewhere maybe, but not at all to that is in the OP in reality.... (for example, I did NOT suggest that the chapter is only metaphorical and not literal!)

Perhaps it might help if you have false ideas about what you think I think for me to inform you I think the chapter is about actual real days that were literally specific literal days, so that if you had a time machine and could travel to one of the given days in the Chapter, you'd literally see the same things that the chapter is saying were present on those days, accomplished. Does that help???

Now, start completely over. Start from zero bad assumptions and try to find out what all I was writing about in the OP. But if you don't feel like that at the moment, that's perfectly fine, and you can any day, next week, next month, today, tomorrow -- doesn't matter when.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
To argue that any evolution would disprove God is very much like trying to argue that the Earth being an oblate sphere proves God doesn't exist (since certain verses read in isolation can be suggested to be read to suggest the Earth is flat, if you come to the text with that idea ahead of time.... but if we read the bible through (instead of only isolated verses) -- full reading -- with more a listening attitude, then we don't miss the meaning in full context.)
Most evolutionists would at least admit that it disproves the literal 7 day creation week of Gen 1-2 and EX 20:11
Wait a moment! I've repeatedly quoted and said that creation was done in 6 days, quoting the text at length, and referring to the 6 days and individuals days and so on....
Can't have it both ways.

Can't be 4 billion literal years and 7 literal days.

we probably both agree that Moses was not a Darwinist and was not teaching evolutionism in Gen 1-2 or in Ex 20:8-11 - nor would his readers have "read evolution into" his text.

IT also means He created all of this world and life on it - in the exact time frame that HE stated.

Reading Gen 1-2 I think we both agree that we do NOT find "in some timeframe unknown to mankind - God created all life on Earth"

Rather we find

Gen 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
..
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Instead of something like "scripture gives no timeframe for the creation of life on Earth - all we know is that in some timeframe he did it... possibly via evolution" -- we have the above scriptures explicitly stating details that some wish were not even in scripture but yet -- there they are.

We also probably both agree that no evolution text on Earth starts off with the 7 day creation week as the affirmed accepted statement for origins of all life on Earth.

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

One thing that both sides tend to agree on is that Ex 20:11, Gen 2:2-3 , Gen 1 -- is not how we say "evolution did it".
And the normal everyday evolution science text book is not how we say "In 6 literal days - six evenings and mornings - God created all life on Earth then rested the seventh day"
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Most evolutionists would at least admit that it disproves the literal 7 day creation week of Gen 1-2 and EX 20:11

Can't have it both ways.

Can't be 4 billion literal years and 7 literal days.

we probably both agree that Moses was not a Darwinist and was not teaching evolutionism in Gen 1-2 or in Ex 20:8-11 - nor would his readers have "read evolution into" his text.



We also probably both agree that no evolution text on Earth starts off with the 7 day creation week as the affirmed accepted statement for origins of all life on Earth.

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

One thing that both sides tend to agree on is that Ex 20:11, Gen 2:2-3 , Gen 1 -- is not how we say "evolution did it".
And the normal everyday evolution science text book is not how we say "In 6 literal days - six evenings and mornings - God created all life on Earth then rested the seventh day"
A little over 1/2 of U.S. Christians believe God is both able and did use natural processes (because they believe in God as creator of Nature). There are a variety of competing ideas, not only metaphorical ones.

My own view for instance is literal that the 6 days of Genesis 1 are actual days which are widely spaced apart in time (so, 24 hour days).


But there's a bigger issue here than only that we have different ideas about details of creation -- after all both of us present ideas that fit the text.

Both of us have a view that fits the text.

And so we only have a mere different interpretation going on -- which is what Romans chapter 14 is about: to simply accept that some think differently on some things....

So, why do I even try to discuss it?

Here's why>>>

The single most widely used atheist tactic (trick, illusion, false claim) they use to argue against God and the Bible -- in order to combat any new Christian faith among the lost -- is the old false claim that Earth being old or having any evolution then shows Genesis chapter 1 false (thus the bible false, thus God fake, etc.)

It's an effective trick/falsehood they use there. (They also use Calvinist double predestination in a similar way very often in the last 2-3 years, so there is a 2nd major tactic, and lately it's more common to see the Calvinist idea instead of YEC being used)

Most atheists will sooner or later rely on this key false assertion regarding Genesis 1 and the age of the Earth to argue that the Bible is ust false, a mere myth, etc.

They often do this after their other arguments fail.

I know this first hand -- having arrived at this situation dozens of times.

After often long discussions where I show the mistakes in other arguments atheists use, then.....

After those other arguments are shown false....then....many atheists will fall back to pointing out the age of the Earth (or Calvinist double predestination) and very often then point at YEC type young Earth creationist theory as if that doctrine is simply the text (instead of just one interpretation) to then instantly remind the audience that the Bible must be false (since the stars are old, Earth is old, etc.).

If we accidentally even give support (even just inadvertently without realizing) to that false idea, the idea that Earth being old would disprove and show false Genesis 1 -- while in reality an old Earth and/or any evolution at the very most would only show that a certain way of interpreting might be wrong, not any more than that! -- then we are (if we do that) then inadvertently helping atheists win in their efforts to paint scripture as false, and prevent any new faith in God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Ace777

Jesus Saves
Jun 20, 2024
1,241
279
73
44221
✟9,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Visions involve the imaginal and symbolic, not some kind of scientific reality.
Visions involve the imagination. That can be used for good or evil. Genesis 6:5 "The LORD saw that the wickedness (depravity) of man was great on the earth, and that every imagination or intent of the thoughts of his heart were only evil". So we need to use our imagination for good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Ace777

Jesus Saves
Jun 20, 2024
1,241
279
73
44221
✟9,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Can't be 4 billion literal years and 7 literal days.
That is a mystery how a day can represent a long period of time. God declares the end from the beginning. Isaiah 46 10 explains it all. "I declare the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come." I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’
 
Upvote 0

Ace777

Jesus Saves
Jun 20, 2024
1,241
279
73
44221
✟9,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
God is both able and did use natural processes
God created the laws of physics. The universe science tells us is very finely balanced and tuned. We can ONLY see the effect. We can not actually see the laws themselves. Although DNA helps us to understand a lot and it has been said that DNA is the language of God.
 
Upvote 0

davetaff

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2024
403
68
82
South Wales
✟56,892.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi God tells us at the very beginning of scripture what he would create which would be man in his image that man is Jesus Christ at his second coming.
It would take 6 days 1000 years long the first man he created was the nation Israel this was man in the flesh which must come first but the man of flesh cannot enter into heaven he must be transformed into a spiritual man this happens at baptism the man of flesh dies and is reborn as spirit and enter the body of Christ.

Love and Peace
Dave
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Genesis is clear .... creation happen in 6 literal days
6 days where? At the north and south pole a day lasts for 6 months, so they only have one day a year. If you go by sunrise and sunset. Of course light is refracted so they still have the northern lights. Just no direct sun light.
 
Upvote 0