All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
The Earth's Creation
This is taken from another discussion. What are your views on the Creation? 6 days? Earth is a billion years old?
Views: 1159
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ScribeD on
-
The way I see it: there are some options for how to understand this matter.
a. 6 literal days, 24 hours. Period.
b. Billions and Zillions of years (why not just add a few made up terms while we're at it).
c. Other...
Here's the problem:
The first few verses of Genesis make sense to scientists. Energy, Matter, Time and Space all come into existence at roughly the same time. All well and good. Then, you have God creating things "out of order" from the way they wan to see it. Why? I don't know... Man's presumption for how things "ought" to have happened.
You also have this little issue of the distances of things out there in the universe. Not just stars, but clusters of galaxies so far beyond our own. The "time" it would take for light to travel those distances is mind boggling.
"Other" Possibilities:
1. God was only referring to our own Galaxy, in describing our creation. Maybe Genesis 1 has nothing to do with any other Galaxy. I think that is fair enough to say is a valid possibility.
2. Maybe all of our assumptions (meaning modern science assumptions) are flat out, totally, categorically WRONG.
- One assumption they make is that light has always traveled at the same speed. Why? Because they want to. It's easier to create their limited world view.
- Another assumption is that space itself is just a big empty place. But, more and more we are learning that there is an energy fabric to space itself that is still mostly unknown.
I have watched the big space science guys try to shred creationism. But they become soooooo certain about their theories, which are just one pile of assumptions upon another pile of assumptions. The one big theory is the Big Bang. So, I watched a series with David Hawking. Very smart guy. Maybe. But, he's incredibly prideful as well. He can't see that he can't see what he can't see. He tries to explain how that the entire universe started as a single point in space smaller than a pin-hole, and then, suddenly, in less than one trillionth of a second BAM! the whole universe expanded into it's current size.
Now think about that for a second. Why did it have to begin from a single point? Hawking speaks of this as a "miracle". Sure! Yes I agree. Why from a single point? They want to see it as an explosion. Chaos. Why not accept that it is no less complicated to accept that it suddenly came into existence in it's present form? A God who would do that, could make the light travel across that span in the time it would take for us to see it. (in other words he could accellerate it or he could create it in motion).
Why an explosion? Because they consider it easier to make that seem like a "natural" event - some ultra-compressed pile of matter and energy erupted like a hot shaken soda can. Yet Hawking, the guy that everyone agrees is the smartest guy in the room, uses the term "miracle". And no one can explain where that soda can came from in the first place.
Another "possible" way to understand creation:
When God created the universe, he did in fact expand it. Isaiah 45:12 says "...My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts."If God expanded the universe, which this seems to indicate, would not time expand as space did? Einstein said that time and space were one unified dimension, indivisible. If the heavens expanded, didn't time therefore expand as well? And didn't light itself therefore become expanded, slowed? Look at it backwards: for the universe to be condensed, wouldn't time and the speed of light be accellerated also?
Well, the evolutionary scientists wont find out, because they're not looking. They are dead set on seeing the world in Billions of years, despite the fact that the other laws of science tell us that all of the energy in the universe would have run down by now, due to entropy. they are dead set on that idea because you need it to be that way, in order to account for one cell morphing into thousands of species. Never mind how ridiculous that is.
I'll admit, I don't understand "how" 6 days of creation worked. But, so what? There's a lot of things that we don't understand; many that we do now, but which we didn't understand just 100 years ago.
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
David,
As you are aware, Dr. Ross believes that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. What he is saying is that he accepts some of what nature is saying and some of what the Bible is saying and takes that and tries to mix it all together and come up with a belief system which he speaks of in this debate. He is as laughable to modern science as any of us - maybe just a little more so. He takes a little here and and little there. Many are guilty of the same.
Either the Scripture is true or it is not true. There is no middle ground and no 67th book of the Bible. How can we take nature and compare it to the written Word of God? There are so many unanswered questions about nature. It truly will take billions of years to answer the questions from nature. That is impossible. The problem we have is that none were there to observe. The Big Bang is not fact; it is mere speculation. The Big Bang is a changing theory. It began as starting compressing all matter into an area some trillion miles wide. It went from there to billions of miles wide. It was then to be defined as an area simply miles wide, then less and less until now the area of that matter has disappeared completely into an area so minute, it could not be viewed from the most powerful microscope on the earth. Of course, all of this is very silly and we laugh at these who purport such things as these laugh at us for saying God did it in six days.
There is no way to put Scripture on the same level as the interpretations from nature. One must supersede the other. For me, it is Scripture. For these philosophers that call themselves scientists, it is nature. They do believe that their study of nature trumps Scripture and that is simply a shame. There are a few like Ross that will say, "Wait a minute, I believe in billions of years. Am I not more acceptable to your group." Of course, the answer is "no" since you believe that Adam is a special creation and that is a concept totally rejected by modern science.
-
-
Tammy,
Is it so difficult for us to understand what God is saying to us in Genesis one. I am going to do an exercise and let's see if you can get it. I am going to use the word "day" to show a different meaning and you tell me which time or times the word "day or days" means a literal twenty-four hour period. Here it is:
Back in my day it would take me up to three days to plow a thirty acre field. Now, a farmer can do that in one day or less.
I know this is really a very difficult exercise but how many times did I use the word "day" to indicate a literal twenty-four hour period of time and how many times did I use the word to express a period of time?
Language is an art form we use to express what we mean by what we are saying. Sometimes it is necessary to use the context of words to get the meaning. Actually, it is quite simple to get my meaning as it is to get the meaning in Genesis one. By the way, the statement is true. But, that would have been with a fourteen inch three bottom plow. Of course, a farmer today doesn't use the same kind of technology used "back in my day." Nowadays, that same field can be plowed in a matter of hours.
Wow! there are just too many different uses of the basic word "day" in these very complex statements. I can easily understand if one would say that they have no idea of what I am talking about.
-
Permalink Reply by Tammy on
-
Roy, I'm totally with you brother & we're in the same ballpark. I believe morning & evening total one & He created the world in six. In your example, back in the day means in the ancient times. I know because I, too, lived back in the day. (lol) It took you 3 days to plow where a farmer could do it in one.
-
-
Sorry, I am going to break the rule of no copying and pasting and paste a couple of comments from the website Answers in Genesis:
In Martin Luther’s day, some of the church fathers were saying that God created everything in only one day or in an instant. Martin Luther wrote,
When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.18
Similarly, John Calvin stated, “Albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. ... God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”19
Luther and Calvin were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation that called the church back to Scripture—Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Both of these men were adamant that Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of creation—only thousands of years ago.
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have...
Also, Hovind incorrectly indicated that no teacher of Hebrew interprets the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour period. Ankerberg jumped on that citing men like Norman Geisler to dispute that notion, The original quote was from Dr. James Barr quoted in this same article:
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
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 Gen. 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 worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16
In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,
If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17
-
-
Perhaps this professor was attempting to tie those who believed in Genesis to a literal interpretation of the same. In this way, perhaps an attempt to show them wrong was in the making. If so, I think that sort of imagination will fail and the Bible will be shown (if given enough time) to be true.
Tammy, this is in reference to the quote from Barr rather than your post. :)
-
-
Sorry Roy. I know you hate commentaries. This is from Answers In Genesis & they say it much better then I could ever say it.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, “… one day is with the Lord as a thousand years …“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, “… and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 P (eter) it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
What does “day” mean?
The empty tomb
If we allow our children to doubt the days of creation, when the language speaks so plainly, they are likely to then doubt Christ’s Virgin Birth, and that He really rose from the dead.
The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.1
Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom‘s meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, “evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.
What if the days were millions of years?
The whole of the creation restored … to what?
The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world’s creation.
The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record.
The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.
If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled—then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world.
How should we approach scripture?
Wrong foundation.
The Apostle Paul was grieved when he found the city of Athens steeped in idolatry (Acts 17:16). When he noticed the altar “to the unknown god’, he used the opportunity to tell the philosophers that their unknown god is God the Creator, Lord of heaven and earth.
One of the major problems we all have (in fact, it is the same problem Adam and Eve had) is that we tend to start from outside God’s Word and then go to what God has written in the Bible (or—in Adam’s case—what God said directly to him) to try to interpret it on the basis of our own ideas. This is really the major reason why most people question the days of creation.
We need to realize that the Bible is God’s Word. And as it is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator, God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting. Thus, we should always start with what God’s Word says regardless of outside ideas. Only God’s Word is infallible.
If we allow our children to accept the possibility that we can doubt the days of creation when the language speaks so plainly, then we are teaching them a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn’t they then start to doubt that Christ’s Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn’t they start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?
In fact, there are many theologians who doubt these very things, as they have come to disbelieve the plain words of Scripture written in the foundational Book of Genesis.
Why did God take six days?
Was there death, pain, and suffering before Adam and Eve’s sin?
At the close of the Creation Week, God called everything He had made “very good.” This is powerful evidence against the idea that long ages of suffering and dying took place before the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, appeared.
If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless.
The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.
Were the days 24 hours? Most definitely! “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Originally published in Creation 18(1):38-41, December 1995
-
-
Tammy,
I took that back. I changed my mind completely. I was wrong to say that. However, I did not say that I hate commentaries. I love commentaries. I am not a great fan of copying and pasting. However, I realized how silly a comment like that was. It was really not I had intended to say anyway but that is the way it came out. I was wrong. I am having a healthy meal of crow right now.
-
-
Sorry about that. Wrong words. I knew what you meant because I, too, read every commentary published myself. I just found that one article really really interesting & said exactly my thoughts but in better words. The comment about you hating them was a cute comment based on our earlier conversation.
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
It opens with," In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " Simple enough. Next, Right from the start, we are faced with a conundrum. For the Earth he created in the beginning, was of course a form. That is the simple reading Right? Then all of a sudden, it is without form and void. What just happened? Darkness is on the deep, What is the deep? where did that come from? and God (His spirit)was moving over the face of the waters. I guess the waters came with the earth. But that's hard to have if we don't have form or void. So maybe, form and void are not heaven or earth itself but something else.
1) Define form. The Hebrew word used means:
“From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.” Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
2) Define Void: The Hebrew word used means:
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void. Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
3) According to you, why was God unable to put the water on the earth in the initial day of creation?
4) Are you really confused as to what the meaning of “Deep” is in relation to this conversation?
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth as said. God, the angles , Jesus and the Holy spirit are the "us" who later make man in "our" image.
Correction … the angels did not create and are not part of the us. This only relates to the Godhead.
Satin sins ,and is cast out. There are only two places (heaven and earth) and he gets booted out of heaven. Is he on earth? He seems to be when Adam and Eve show up.
When did Satan sin? Was He caste out before or after God created? Does the Scripture actually tell us? In fact, when did God create the angels?
Let there be light , and Light is good? but, only God is good. So , perhaps light is more than brightness. It is carrying a property of goodness and has a real lighting property as well. Darkness is therefore the other, evil ,as its counterpart. The good light is now called Day and the representative of evil is now called night.
God proclaimed His creation at the end of each day to be good. Using your logic how would you apply that allegory to plants, animals and man of whom God proclaimed His creation good each day?.
Later the stars are called upon to rule... How does a star rule?
Does Genesis 1 actually say that the stars rule? Does the Sun and moon govern the day and the night? What authority do governors have? Constituted authority, that which is extended to them and only up to a point. What does the sun govern in the day? Do the plants require the light of the sun to live? Do the tides rise and recede because of the affects of the moon. The operate as designed by God accomplishing the tasks they were given.
Day and night are not limited in meaning to the physical properties of the sun. In fact It is peculiar for God to call the passing of time , "evening and morning " in the same context and paragraphs. Unless ,as It seems evident, God is talking about two aspects of His creation. Good and Evil, the qualities of our struggle(Day and night), as well as, the passing of time (evening and morning) . Beautiful.
Amazing … it is not evident that it speaks of literal days, but it is evident that is speaks of something else …. Please elaborate as to how from Scripture and not external teachings that you come to that conclusion.
If this is established: that Satan was earthbound, What was Satin doing down here? Was that the darkness and the deep that God moved over and shed light upon. How long was he here in the deep and darkness before God set in motion the solution to Satins sin?
Rev_13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Did he(Satin) make the UN- holy forms that we find deep in the earth. Is this enough time and events to shape things before the coming of Adam? Is this the deep time before the time of God and Man? The dark time , The other story?
And where in Scripture, without man’s imagination, do we find this other story that people tend to bounce around.
-
-
I know you are ribbin me, but you make some points worth responding to even in this poking fun.
I thought I have been nice all along. I have not poked at you to my knowledge in any way, but have sought to focus on the points you make and address them.
Simple does not mean that it is understood without effort.
Do you know the story of Moby Dick? Have you heard others tell you about it or seen the movie? Have you actually read Moby Dick (if you have read it, pick another well known book that you have heard about, but not read, for this illustration)? You will know more about Moby Dick if you have read the book (and even more about it if you have read it more than once) than if you simply listened to what others said about it.
This is not poking at you, but an attempt to illustrate what I mean by simple. Simple to understand when we read the whole Book and seek to recognize that it will always be in harmony. We find that we need not allegorize the whole, as some groups do, to see the harmony when we read it at face value (i.e. history as history, poetry as poetry, allegory as allegory, etc). We need not turn everything into allegory in an attempt to harmonize it with the world and its teachings.
It is true that some of Scripture leaves us with difficulties, but these difficulties tend to be blown out of proportion when we focus in on the single point or verse instead of seeing the whole of Scripture as one unified work. Many today read the Word as a disconnected conglomeration of various writings. There are those of us who see the true author to be the Holy Spirit the Same Holy Spirit who dwells within the child of God.
Regarding pastors and gurus the Bible does tell us that not many should seek to teach, though almost everyone today has an opinion and given a platform they have sway over the thoughts of others. I believe a lot of the confusion is caused by those who attempt to teach who should not.
One last thing regarding simple:
You and I had to be taught that the simple equation of 2+2=4. To us today the concept is so simple, yet to the young child it is not so simple. The same is true of reading. You and I can read the word "Monday" and we know what Monday is because we were taught a truth that, to use Scribe's point (but not saying he meant it this way) was very complex to the young child, but to the one taught now sees it as simple, even to the point that we know it is preceded by Sunday and followed by Tuesday. Thus, I take the Word to be simple, yet must be studied and understood in context.
To you personally. I am not at the least upset with you. I am glad you are on a journey to find truth. My prayer for you is that you truly seek out truth and are protected from being sucked into various popular teachings (worldly and religious teachings). I also, as stated before, am not seeking to persuade you. There is no reason to believe something just because I say it (in fact the church where I pastor I tell them to examine what I say and challenge me on it if they think I am incorrect), but that should hold true for all others you read and listen to as well.
Not to belabor this, but I guess I will ... hahaha, did you know what the organization, whose rather long and large website you posted from, believe? I do not like naming organizations in this setting, so I will leave it nameless. They talk about the authority of Scripture and then go into how the Scripture should be interpreted. There final point of Scripture being interpreted is that the interpretation must align with the teaching of the church ... What???? That is backwards! The teaching of the church must align with Scripture .......
-
-
Eric, there are two ways to see life:
1. Use human thinking and wisdom to appraise God (God's word, etc).
2. Use God's wisdom and thoughts to appraise man.
I think LT would agree with me on this: we must seek God's view point. Man's views are like the tides and wind, they ebb and flow and erode. God is not impressed by man's thinking. His ways are higher. We must seek them.
The Bible is both complex and simple. The Gospel is comprehensible to children and common people. Yet, to truly master and understand the Bible is something that takes deep study. Proverbs 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Which I take it to mean that God has placed hidden treasures that wise and educated people ought to seek out.
For me, it has been an ambition for most of my adult life to understand scripture. Creation is one that has had me puzzled at times. Yet, I know that God is the only one who was there to tell us how it happened. We may study and try to understand what His word is telling us, but to disagree with it is folly. The more I seek out His word, the more I realize how foolish is the wisdom of mankind and how God confounds the wise.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
