Christian Forums

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sat Oct 08, 2022 - 18:16:29
Found the strawman!  Again...

You're not talking to an evolutionist.  Why do you keep arguing against something that NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT?

Really, things nobody is talking about? Perhaps this is true in relation to yourself, certainly not others on this thread. I you don't mind my asking, just what do you believe. If you are neither a Creationist or Evolutionist, just exactly what are you.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Oct 09, 2022 - 11:22:55
Really, things nobody is talking about? Perhaps this is true in relation to yourself, certainly not others on this thread. I you don't mind my asking, just what do you believe. If you are neither a Creationist or Evolutionist, just exactly what are you.

I don't believe in six-twenty-four-hour-days like you, but I am still a Creationist.

I believe that the creation was first unformed, and that God formed it into its present shape over a long period of time.  Creation is a process, not instantaneous.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Oct 09, 2022 - 16:24:15
I don't believe in six-twenty-four-hour-days like you, but I am still a Creationist.

I believe that the creation was first unformed, and that God formed it into its present shape over a long period of time.  Creation is a process, not instantaneous.

Jarrod

I can agree with this. 

QuoteI don't believe in six-twenty-four-hour-days like you, but I am still a Creationist.

I believe that the creation was first unformed, and that God formed it into its present shape over a long period of time.  Creation is a process, not instantaneous.

Jarrod

So where, exactly, did this "unformed" creation come from?  To take that theory to it's logically conclusion, God would have created this "unformed" creation, left it alone for an unknown epoch of time and then went back to it and formed it into our present Universe.  And it took Him a really long time because it seems you believe God is limited to creating the Universe the way you think He did.  It would seem that God took an unnecessary, redundant step there.  I will point out again that if it took God a really long time to make the Universe, He is not all-powerful.  I don't think you are doing so intentionally but you are inadvertently denying one of God's immutable characteristics with your theory.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 01:44:02
So where, exactly, did this "unformed" creation come from?  To take that theory to it's logically conclusion, God would have created this "unformed" creation, left it alone for an unknown epoch of time and then went back to it and formed it into our present Universe.  And it took Him a really long time because it seems you believe God is limited to creating the Universe the way you think He did.  It would seem that God took an unnecessary, redundant step there.  I will point out again that if it took God a really long time to make the Universe, He is not all-powerful.  I don't think you are doing so intentionally but you are inadvertently denying one of God's immutable characteristics with your theory.

Perhaps I can explain my understanding more clearly using

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Yesterday at 16:24:15

QuoteI don't believe in six-twenty-four-hour-days like you, but I am still a Creationist.[/size]

I believe that the creation was first unformed, and that God formed it into its present shape over a long period of time.  Creation is a process, not instantaneous.

Jarrod

Nothing is done nor has been done in history as far back as it can legitimately be tracked, nor before that where we cannot and have not gone.

Everything starts as a thought.

All of creation started as a thought.

This is provable in part by the simple statement of God saying in Gen 1 : 26

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This verse does not say And God said.... and something was done.

It says according to King Jimmy..20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life

It says according to King Jimmy..24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,

God was commanding the waters and the earth.

Was this because he had an overall plan.... That is my belief and there fore that plan netted the things in vs 20, 24 and all else.

What God did differently in vs 26 was to say "Let us make man in our image"

This single statement certaibnly has to tell one that God the Father was talking to Hos other parts in the Trinity after God the Father had preconceived the human aspect of creation.

He had a plan ... it did not come off the top of his head....

So where did the formed creation come from ? Has to be from His mind as his plans were formed. It did not just happen.

But there is no way all of creation was made in 6 literal 24 hour days.

The universe, for example....  There are an estimated number of planets in the Virgo Supercluster, which comes to 21.6 sextillion. That's 21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (2 plus 23 zeros).

Do YOU honestly think that with the varieties that are out , that we are aware of, there that God just sat up in heaven with his marbles, and modeling clay forming little round balls and marbles and just tossed them out into the air? Perhaps he chose his largest pumpkin to drop into the pool of ping pong balls and send them flying into space before He individualized each one?

Then as he was individualizing each he chose earth for the next part of His creation. All forms of life.

No , no matter what you personally believe of the initial creation of the Universe... just  that, in and of itself would have taken longer then 1 day.

He had a plan... or perhaps a hobby ... that was worked on over time.

Even if you could prove all the plants etc came into existence at the very same moment... they had to have come from a plan.

NOW as to your idea of "left it alone for an unknown epoch of time and then went back to it and formed it into our present Universe."

That is my belief.

I believe God created all the diversity in the heavens to enjoy.

I also believe that when he came to making all life from dandelions, pig weed , and thistles to His plan of salvation for his human creation that he surly could have done all of this creating in a single day... in the blink of an eye... but the Holy Bible talks of 6 creation periods that were called days. (BTW.. I firmly believe this "life" creation was done for a specific purpose and if that had not been needed neither would we.... but I am not going into that)

6 periods of creation.

Let me ask you a question.  With everything that requires a day, date, or timespan that are in the stories, sermons, and lectures in the bible.... how many get the timing wrong?

We do not have specifics for the actual crucifixion day... (DON"T say Friday... that is wrong)

We do not have the actual date of the birth of our Savior.

We do not have an actual date for the parting of the red sea . 1440 BC or 1441 BC is only approximate.

We do not have an exact date for the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.  1897 BC, 1896 BC 2065BC

We do not know truly how long Noahs Ark was afloat. It is said Depending on your reckoning of this time frame, the ark was afloat somewhere between 150 and 190 days.

We do not have the death dates for the diciples.

We do not have the dates for John on Patmos.

I could go on but wont... You get the idea.

So why would anyone give specific credence to the creation of all life on eart to 6 litereal 24 hour days..

NOW:

I am reposting part of a reply of mine when we were talking about the age of the earth.... under Giants

Points 2 and 3 in the following are key explanations

NO ONE IS DENYING ANY OF GODs IMMUTIBLE CHARACTERISTICS WITH OUR THEORIES

APOLOGIES FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS FOLLOWING BUT IT IS EASIER TO COPY AND PAST HERE THEN FOR YOU TO NEED A LINK FOR REFERENCE.


https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/
Quote

Contrary to what is often implied or claimed by young-earth creationists, the Bible nowhere directly teaches the age of the earth.

Rather, it is a deduction from a combination of beliefs, such as (1) Genesis 1:1 is not the actual act of creation but rather a summary of or title over Genesis 1:2-2:3; (2) the creation week of Genesis 1:2-2:3 is referring to the act of creation itself; (3) each "day" (Heb. yom) of the creation week is referring to an 24-hour period of time (reinforced by the statement in Exodus 20:11); (4) an old-earth geology would necessarily entail macroevolution, hominids, and animal death before the Fall—each of which contradicts what Scripture tells us; and (5) the approximate age of the earth can be reconstructed backward from the genealogical time-markers in Genesis.

These five points may all be true, but I think it's helpful to understand that the question "how old is the earth?" is not something directly answered in Scripture but rather deduced from these and other points.

It is commonly suggested that this is such a "plain reading" of Scripture—so obviously clear and true—that the only people who doubt it are those who have been influenced by Charles Darwin and his neo-Darwinian successors. The claim is often made that no one doubted this reading until after Darwin. (This just isn't true—from ancient rabbis to Augustine to B. B. Warfield—but that's another post for another time.)

So it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this interpretation.

Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine" (City of God 11.7).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century's best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each."

Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding  the length of the creation days, "That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like."

Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that "Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended."

Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote "On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer's conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day."

I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods. Am I as certain of this as I am of the resurrection of Christ? Definitely not. But in some segments of the church, I fear that we've built an exegetical "fence around the Torah," fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism. The defenders of inerrancy above show that this is not the case. And a passion for sola Scriptura provides us with the humility and willingness to go back to the text again to see if these things are so.

What follows are brief sketches of biblical reasons to doubt young-earth exegesis.

1. Genesis 1:1 Describes the Actual Act of Creation Out of Nothing and Is Not a Title or a Summary

Genesis 1:1 tells us that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

This is not a title or a summary of the narrative that follows. Rather, it is a background statement that describes how the universe came to be.

In Genesis 1:1, "created" is in the perfect tense, and when a perfect verb is used at the beginning of a unit in Hebrew narrative, it usually functions to describe an event that precedes the main storyline (see Gen. 16:1, 22:1, 24:1 for comparison).

Furthermore, the Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 supports this reading.

If Genesis 1:1 is merely a title or a summary, then Genesis does not teach creation out of nothing. But I think Genesis 1:1 is describing the actual act of God creating "heaven and earth" (a merism for the universe, indicating totality—like "high and low," "east and west," "near and far," "rising up and sitting down," "seen and unseen"). Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of everything "visible and invisible" (Col. 1:16), with Genesis 1:2ff. focusing upon the "visible."

After the act of creation in Genesis 1:1, the main point of the narrative (in Gen. 1:3-2:3) seems to be the making and preparation of the earth for its inhabitants, with a highly patterned structure of forming and filling.



2. The Earth, Darkness, and Water Are Created Before "The First Day"

In Genesis 1:1, God creates the "heavens and the earth." (In Joel 3:15-16 we see that "heavens" encompasses the sun, the moon, and the stars.) Then in Genesis 1:2 we are told that this earth that was created is without form and void, that darkness covers the waters, and that the Spirit is hovering over it.

If Genesis 1:1 is not the act of creation, then where do the earth, the darkness, and the waters come from that are referred to in Genesis 1:2 before God's first fiat? Further, if the sun is created in day four (Gen. 1:16), why do we have light already appearing in Genesis 1:3?

It helps to remember that in Hebrew there are distinct words for create and make. When the Hebrew construction let there be is used in the phrase "Let your steadfast love . . . be upon us" (Ps. 33:22; cf. Ps. 90:17; Ps. 119:76), this obviously isn't a request for God's love to begin to exist, but rather to function in a certain way. Similarly, if the sun, moon, stars, and lights were created in Genesis 1:1, then they were made or appointed for a particular function in Genesis 1:13, 14, 16—namely, to mark the set time for worship on man's calendar.

3. The Seventh "Day" Is Not 24 Hours Long

In Genesis 2:2-3 where we are told that "on the seventh day [yom] God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day [yom] from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day [yom] and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." The question we have to ask here is: was God's creation "rest" limited to a 24-hour period? On the contrary, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 teach that God's Sabbath rest "remains" and that we can enter into it or be prevented from entering it.

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.

4. The "Day" of Genesis 2:4 Cannot Be 24 Hours Long

After using "the seventh day" in an analogical way (i.e., similar to but not identical with a 24-hour day), we read in the very next verse, Genesis 2:4: "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."

The precise meaning of this is debated. But what seems clear, if we believe the Bible does not contradict itself, is that this (singular) "day"—in which the creation events (plural "generations") occur—cannot refer to a single 24-hour period. In fact, it does not seem to correspond to any one of the creation week days, but is either a reference to the act of creation itself (Gen. 1:1) or an umbrella reference to the lengthier process of forming and fitting the inhabitable earth (Gen. 2:2ff). In either case, this use of yom presents a puzzle for those who insist that "young-earth" exegesis is the only interpretation that takes the opening chapters of Genesis "literally."

Defenders of the 24-hour view acknowledge that yom can mean more than a single calendar day but often insist that "[numbered] yom" (e.g., "first day") always, without exception, refers to a 24-hour day in the Hebrew Bible. This is not true, however. Not only does the rest of the canon tell us that the "seventh day" is not 24 hours, but Hosea 6:2 ("third day") seems to be used in an analogical way that does not refer to a precise 24-hour time period.

5. The Explanation of Genesis 2:5-7 Assumes More Than an Ordinary Calendar Day

In his article "Because It Had Rained" (part 1 and part 2), Mark Futato of Reformed Theological Seminary explains the logic of Genesis 2:5-7 and shows its role in OT covenantal theology.

Futato sees in this passage a twofold problem, a twofold reason, and a twofold solution.

Screen Shot 2015-01-27 at 9.40.28 AM

The twofold problem?

No wild vegetation had appeared in the land.
No cultivated grains had yet sprung up.
The twofold reason for this problem?

The Lord God had not sent rain on the land.
There was no man to cultivate the ground.
The twofold solution to this problem?

God caused rain clouds to rise up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
The Lord God formed the man.
Note the reason why there were no shrubs or small plants in the Garden: because "it had not yet rained." The explanation for this lack of vegetation which is attributed to ordinary providence. But if the sixth day is a 24-hour period, this explanation would make little sense. The very wording of the text presupposes seasons and rain cycles and a lengthier passage of time during this "day [yom]" that God formed man. This doesn't mean that it refers to thousands of years, or hundreds of years. It just means that it's very doubtful it means a 24-hour period.

So What Does God Mean by "Days" in Genesis 1?

Let's go back to the "seventh day." On the seventh day, according to Exodus 31:17, God "rested and was refreshed." Why would an omnipotent and inexhaustible God need to be "refreshed"? It's the same Hebrew word used for getting your breath back after running a long race (Ex. 23:2; 2 Sam. 16:14). The reason it is not improper to say that God was refreshed is the same reason it's not improper to say that God breathes, hovers, is like a potter, gardens, searches, asks questions, comes down, etc.—all images of God used in Genesis. God's revelation to us is analogical (neither entirely identical nor entirely dissimilar) and anthropomorphic (accommodated and communicated from our perspective in terms we can understand).

So when God refers to "days," does he want us to mentally substitute the word "eons" or "ages"? No.

Does he want us to think of precise units of time, marked by 24 exact hours as the earth makes a rotation on its axis? No.

Does he want us to think of the Hebrew workday? Yes, in an analogical and anthropomorphic sense. Just as the "seventh day" makes us think of an ordinary calendar day (even though it isn't technically a 24-hour period), so the other "six days" are meant to be read in the same way.

This is what the great Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) believed: "The creation days are the workdays of God. By a labor, resumed and renewed six times, he prepared the whole earth."

This is also what the Presbyterian theologian W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894) advocated:

The seven days of the human week are copies of the seven days of the divine week. The "sun-divided days" are images of the "God-divided days."

This agrees with the biblical representation generally. The human is the copy of the divine, not the divine of the human. Human fatherhood and sonship are finite copies of the Trinitarian fatherhood and sonship. Human justice, benevolence, holiness, mercy, etc., are imitations of corresponding divine qualities.

The reason given for man's rest upon the seventh solar day is that God rested upon the seventh creative day (Ex. 20:11). But this does not prove that the divine rest was only twenty-four hours in duration any more than the fact that human sonship is a copy of the divine proves that the latter is sexual.

Augustine (the most influential theologian in the Western Church) believed something similar, as did Franz Delitzsch (perhaps the great Christian Hebraist). It was the most common view among the late 19th century and early 20th century conservative Dutch theologians.

God is portrayed as a workman going through his workweek, working during the day and resting for the night. Then on his Sabbath, he enjoys a full and refreshing rest. Our days are like God's workdays, but not identical to them.

How long were God's workdays? The Bible doesn't say. But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.[/quote][/size]

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 01:44:02
So where, exactly, did this "unformed" creation come from?

Gen 1:1-2a  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  And the earth was without form... (KJV)

The Bible didn't feel the need to tell us more than this.  This is sufficient for me.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 01:44:02
To take that theory to it's logically conclusion, God would have created this "unformed" creation, left it alone for an unknown epoch of time and then went back to it and formed it into our present Universe.

There's no reason to think that God left it alone for an extremely long time.  In the Bible, it happens more or less immediately:

Gen 1:2b  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 01:44:02
And it took Him a really long time because it seems you believe God is limited to creating the Universe the way you think He did.  It would seem that God took an unnecessary, redundant step there.  I will point out again that if it took God a really long time to make the Universe, He is not all-powerful.  I don't think you are doing so intentionally but you are inadvertently denying one of God's immutable characteristics with your theory.

If God is God, then He can create the universe in any way that He sees fit.  If you judge God to be inefficient, it doesn't matter.  You ain't the judge.  He is.

I find that it is in the character of God to form things slowly.  After all, He could reach down and *zap* you or me into being a perfect human being, but He hasn't done it.  Each of us starts out as an infant and has to mature.  If this is how God deals with men, why would I assume He would do the opposite in creating the earth?

Jarrod

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 01:44:02And it took Him a really long time because it seems you believe God is limited to creating the Universe the way you think He did.

No, not because anyone thinks He did; instead, because that is what the data from His creation indicates that He did. That data from His creation is data resulting from the natural laws of nature as He created it.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Oct 10, 2022 - 13:24:22
No, not because anyone thinks He did; instead, because that is what the data from His creation indicates that He did. That data from His creation is data resulting from the natural laws of nature as He created it.

And according to Romans 8.20  the fundamental laws of physics changed when man fell in the garden. So the so-called "data" cannot be properly analyzed unless you know how all the laws of physics worked BEFORE the fall.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 07:22:13
And according to Romans 8.20  the fundamental laws of physics changed when man fell in the garden. So the so-called "data" cannot be properly analyzed unless you know how all the laws of physics worked BEFORE the fall.

Again with a really bad translation/interpretation of the Greek word "ktisis".

There is nothing in Romans 8:20 about any change in the fundamental laws of physics.

(ESV) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 6:20-21).

The word "futility" there in the ESV or "vanity" in the KJV or "willingly" in both cannot, in any rational sense, be attributed to any but the human being.  The same is true for the phrases, "bondage to corruption" and "obtain the freedom of the glory...", and for the phrase,

That is also true in verse 22 with the phrases, "groaning together" and "pains of childbiirth". 

The very idea that somehow, the entire universe, as God created it, was changed when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit is truly bazaar.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 07:55:19
Again with a really bad translation/interpretation of the Greek word "ktisis".

There is nothing in Romans 8:20 about any change in the fundamental laws of physics.

(ESV) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 6:20-21).

The word "futility" there in the ESV or "vanity" in the KJV or "willingly" in both cannot, in any rational sense, be attributed to any but the human being.  The same is true for the phrases, "bondage to corruption" and "obtain the freedom of the glory...", and for the phrase,

That is also true in verse 22 with the phrases, "groaning together" and "pains of childbiirth". 

The very idea that somehow, the entire universe, as God created it, was changed when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit is truly bazaar.

I do not consider the translators of the NASB to be "really bad."  In fact it is probably the best translation out there at present.  Here is how NASB translates that passage in Romans 8:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

ETA: 
I do not understand why you would think such a thing "bizarre." Where do you come up with "ALL creation" to mean only humans? 
OR do you think that God did not create the entire universe? 

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 09:31:43
I do not consider the translators of the NASB to be "really bad."  In fact it is probably the best translation out there at present.  Here is how NASB translates that passage in Romans 8:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

ETA: 
I do not understand why you would think such a thing "bizarre." Where do you come up with "ALL creation" to mean only humans? 
OR do you think that God did not create the entire universe?

You are probably right.  I have some big rocks here on my place and I can tell just by looking at them that they are in trouble. They are just frustrated to no end, anxiously waiting to be set free from the slavery of corruption.  Now I haven't really heard any groaning yet, but perhaps I just haven't listened closely enough.  I do live in the timber here.  I have about a dozen tall ponderosa pine trees; I can only guess that they also are at their wit's end just like the rocks.  And I have heard the trees when the wind blows; I guess you could call that groaning. I don't know about their suffering the pains of childbirth; I am not sure how that works.

And of course, I would bet that you are following Mark 16:15 to the letter proclaiming the Gospel to all creation; the rocks, the trees, the oceans, the mountains, and the sun, moon and stars.  How is it working out?  Any takers?

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 12:00:17
You are probably right.  I have some big rocks here on my place and I can tell just by looking at them that they are in trouble. They are just frustrated to no end, anxiously waiting to be set free from the slavery of corruption.  Now I haven't really heard any groaning yet, but perhaps I just haven't listened closely enough.  I do live in the timber here.  I have about a dozen tall ponderosa pine trees; I can only guess that they also are at their wit's end just like the rocks.  And I have heard the trees when the wind blows; I guess you could call that groaning. I don't know about their suffering the pains of childbirth; I am not sure how that works.

And of course, I would bet that you are following Mark 16:15 to the letter proclaiming the Gospel to all creation; the rocks, the trees, the oceans, the mountains, and the sun, moon and stars.  How is it working out?  Any takers?

Did our Lord not say if they silenced the children from praising Him that those rocks would cry out?  Was He lying?

Are there not dozens of OT scriptures that talk about mountains, oceans, trees, etc expressing praise to God?  WAYYY Too many to be mere metaphor.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 12:00:17
You are probably right.  I have some big rocks here on my place and I can tell just by looking at them that they are in trouble. They are just frustrated to no end, anxiously waiting to be set free from the slavery of corruption.  Now I haven't really heard any groaning yet, but perhaps I just haven't listened closely enough.  I do live in the timber here.  I have about a dozen tall ponderosa pine trees; I can only guess that they also are at their wit's end just like the rocks.  And I have heard the trees when the wind blows; I guess you could call that groaning. I don't know about their suffering the pains of childbirth; I am not sure how that works.

And of course, I would bet that you are following Mark 16:15 to the letter proclaiming the Gospel to all creation; the rocks, the trees, the oceans, the mountains, and the sun, moon and stars.  How is it working out?  Any takers?

I am not following anything except you two 

First of all... if everything from rocks to ragweed were not created by God how do you think they came into being?

Scratch ragweed, because it is a living weed and whether it was created , by Satan along with dandelions or by God it did not just happen.

Everything that requires Oxygen and water to live was created... Living things that can and will and do die.

Now as to the rock end of things... Where did those rocks come from?

Did you grow them in a large tank along with other "magic" rocks?
They may not need oxygen and water to live but they came from some part of earth that was, without question, formed by God the Father....

You mention trees. They are living things. Are you saying that they evolved from maybe a piece of seaweed.... OOPS... there's that pesky being alive thing again....

Forget talking of the oceans... full of sea creatures both great and small.... or mountains full of living trees... unless your rocks came from one during a mountain climbing session.... the sun is full of life with its energy we need... and the moon and the stars...... You are simply lacking the understanding to know that there is not a molecule of anything that was not created by God the Father... and brought into existence by the Word.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 13:09:23
Did our Lord not say if they silenced the children from praising Him that those rocks would cry out?  Was He lying?

Are there not dozens of OT scriptures that talk about mountains, oceans, trees, etc expressing praise to God?  WAYYY Too many to be mere metaphor.

How many does it take to be WZYYY Too many to be mere metaphor?

Quote from: Rella on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 13:18:25
I am not following anything except you two 

Rella, none of this has anything to do with what I think about creation.  In only has to do with what Jesus, in Mark 16:15 and Paul in Romans 8 and elsewhere intended with the Greek word, "ktisis".

Strong's gives it

Quote from: Strong'sFrom G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.

Thayer has

Quote from: Thayer1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
  1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
    1b1a) anything created
    1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
    1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance

I think the answer should be obvious from the context, but perhaps not.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 13:09:23
Did our Lord not say if they silenced the children from praising Him that those rocks would cry out?  Was He lying?

Are there not dozens of OT scriptures that talk about mountains, oceans, trees, etc expressing praise to God?  WAYYY Too many to be mere metaphor.

Experience should prompt you to question whether these are literal.

QuoteThere's no reason to think that God left it alone for an extremely long time.  In the Bible, it happens more or less immediately:

You negate your own line of reasoning right there.

You have claimed, over and over that it took God billions of years to form the universe.  That is why you continually insult Young Earth Creationists for taking God at his word and believing that He could create the world in 6 literal days.  Contrary to your personal belief that anyone outside of you hasn't read or studied Genesis, in my 62 years on this ball of dirt God gave us, I've read and studied Genesis a few times.  To fit your personal world view, one has to believe that Genesis is literal, when it agrees with your personal views, but when it doesn't, then it isn't literal.  The Bible doesn't give you that choice.  When it is meant to be taken literally, it is obvious.  When it is not meant to be taken literally, it is also very obvious.  The Bible's authors understood genres much better than we do today, since they were the ones recording what God told them to record.  And 1000's of years later, we have people telling us what the original authors meant and didn't mean. In some cases, such as yours, we have people telling us literal books aren't meant to be translated that way and books we are told were written by one author couldn't possibly be written by them.  People who love allegory love to pick Genesis apart and claim it was written by multiple authors over time because they think that will bolster their own personal beliefs.  But Jesus doesn't give us that option.

In your scenario, God created a formless void and then immediately discovered He had messed things up and decided he would create our Solar system.

1.  Formless void. 

2.  Poof! Earth. 

But that Number 2 part took him billions of years when the first part was immediate.

QuoteAnd according to Romans 8.20  the fundamental laws of physics changed when man fell in the garden. So the so-called "data" cannot be properly analyzed unless you know how all the laws of physics worked BEFORE the fall.

THIS!!!!  +500

When people who want to toss Genesis in the trash and claim it isn't literal and we can just toss that book of the Bible in the trash tell us we can't believe anything it says, the first thing they do is downplay the flood.

Couldn't have been world-wide.

Couldn't have been world-changing.

Couldn't possibly have destroyed all life on Earth except what Noah had saved inside the ark.

Stupid Bible.

The Evolutionists don't quite seem to get it.  When Noah stepped out of the Ark, he didn't look around with an attitude that he got a little bit of water in his basement and he would have to start his sump pump and grab a mop.  He stepped into a world that was totally different than the one he left when God sealed the ark.  He stepped into a fallen Earth that was nothing like the original Earth that God had created.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Post-1381 and 1382 gets +2 and a big AMEN!

Quote from: Cobalt1959  on: Today at 01:37:12Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

It is called a lack of faith in the scriptures, and being influenced by their own wisdom and the so-called wisdom of men of FLESH.

QuoteHebrews 11:3~Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 20:46:01
Experience should prompt you to question whether these are literal.

As a biblical literalist, I believe they ALL are literal.

Experience should NEVER trump biblical truth.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 01:37:12
He stepped into a fallen Earth that was nothing like the original Earth that God had created.

Where in the bible does it say that?

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 01:37:12Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Maybe because it is wrong.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Oct 11, 2022 - 20:46:01
Experience should prompt you to question whether these are literal.

Can you prove that anything in the bible is literal?

Can you prove that God the Father is incapable of making  mountains, oceans, and trees cry out?

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 01:37:12
  He stepped into a world that was totally different than the one he left when God sealed the ark.  He stepped into a fallen Earth that was nothing like the original Earth that God had created.

Different for Noah perhaps, but not different for the rest of the world that didn't experience Noah's flood.

Quote from: Alan on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 07:03:30

Different for Noah perhaps, but not different for the rest of the world that didn't experience Noah's flood.

QuoteDifferent for Noah perhaps, but not different for the rest of the world that didn't experience Noah's flood.

It is difficult to believe that a person claiming to be a Christian, and is a moderator on a Christian forum could type out that sentence.  The rest of the world outside of Noah and his family and the animals in the ark experienced the flood.  And all of them died.  The Bible isn't at all ambiguous on that.  Perhaps you, and Wycliffe, and 4WD should read Genesis again.  Try Chapter 7.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 10:53:04
It is difficult to believe that a person claiming to be a Christian, and is a moderator on a Christian forum could type out that sentence.  The rest of the world outside of Noah and his family and the animals in the ark experienced the flood.  And all of them died.  The Bible isn't at all ambiguous on that.  Perhaps you, and Wycliffe, and 4WD should read Genesis again.  Try Chapter 7.

The world that was flooded in Noah's time is no different from the world that was subject to a drought in Joseph's time.  Neither was a global world.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 01:19:37
You negate your own line of reasoning right there.

You have claimed, over and over that it took God billions of years to form the universe.  That is why you continually insult Young Earth Creationists for taking God at his word and believing that He could create the world in 6 literal days.  Contrary to your personal belief that anyone outside of you hasn't read or studied Genesis, in my 62 years on this ball of dirt God gave us, I've read and studied Genesis a few times.  To fit your personal world view, one has to believe that Genesis is literal, when it agrees with your personal views, but when it doesn't, then it isn't literal.  The Bible doesn't give you that choice.  When it is meant to be taken literally, it is obvious.  When it is not meant to be taken literally, it is also very obvious.  The Bible's authors understood genres much better than we do today, since they were the ones recording what God told them to record.  And 1000's of years later, we have people telling us what the original authors meant and didn't mean. In some cases, such as yours, we have people telling us literal books aren't meant to be translated that way and books we are told were written by one author couldn't possibly be written by them.  People who love allegory love to pick Genesis apart and claim it was written by multiple authors over time because they think that will bolster their own personal beliefs.  But Jesus doesn't give us that option.

In your scenario, God created a formless void and then immediately discovered He had messed things up and decided he would create our Solar system.

1.  Formless void. 

2.  Poof! Earth. 

But that Number 2 part took him billions of years when the first part was immediate.

Do you need to justify yourself so much that you're willing to just make things up?  In EVERY. SINGLE. POST. you accuse me of saying things that I did not say.

The initial creation was formless.  I don't see how this is debatable.  The Bible literally says so in the clearest terms possible.

Immediately afterwards, God began working on it.  Again, the Bible says this.

Do I think that the process of forming it took a long time?  Yes.  Why do I think that?  Because the Bible presents it as a process.

Jarrod

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 07:01:14
Can you prove that anything in the bible is literal?

Yes.  A lot of the Bible is proveable with archaeology.  Here's the remains of the Tower of Babel:

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 07:01:14
Can you prove that God the Father is incapable of making  mountains, oceans, and trees cry out?

Nope.  But I can demonstrate that He hasn't within knowable history.  Good enough?

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 12:43:22
Yes.  A lot of the Bible is proveable with archaeology.  Here's the remains of the Tower of Babel:


Nope.  But I can demonstrate that He hasn't within knowable history.  Good enough?

Jarrod

Well I am certain that archeology can prove a lot, but I was referencing within the written words of the bible.

You said " Experience should prompt you to question whether these are literal."

to which I responded

"Can you prove that anything in the bible is literal?

"Can you prove that God the Father is incapable of making  mountains, oceans, and trees cry out?

No way should anyone use their experience to answer if something is literal or other.

Dave W said "Experience should NEVER trump biblical truth.

I fully agree and so should you given the amount of debate on every "jot and tittle" that makes it to these forums.

Ya'll have a huge amount of experience... as does Cobalt. But you fail to come to a consensus on most.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 12:57:23
No way should anyone use their experience to answer if something is literal or other.

Dave W said "Experience should NEVER trump biblical truth.

I fully agree and so should you.

To quote myself, "Experience should prompt you to question whether this is literal."

Once you have a question, you should go looking for evidence in order to make a decision.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 13:09:47
To quote myself, "Experience should prompt you to question whether this is literal."

Once you have a question, you should go looking for evidence in order to make a decision.

Jarrod

Shoot Jarrod....

Was it not you who within the past 3 days made a comment to me about looking elsewhere for my answers and they may be wrong?

If not you someone did...

Experience of googling? You will be all over the board doing that and will not get a proper answer except by accident as you search.

Global flood, regional flood... no proof from any source.

Are their giants?  Where is the proof for all proof is called fake...

Age of the earth. anywhere between 6000 years and several million or more. Nothing concrete here.

And dont get into the searching of various translations of scripture for we all know that leads to little proof with the varieties out there.

So where are you gonna go looking for evidence?

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 12:57:23
Ya'll have a huge amount of experience... as does Cobalt. But you fail to come to a consensus on most.

Since my church is 100% right, and everyone else's is 100% wrong, if they want to agree with what God's Word says, they would agree with me, for I agree with God.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 13:21:30
Was it not you who within the past 3 days made a comment to me about looking elsewhere for my answers and they may be wrong?

If not you someone did...

Experience of googling? You will be all over the board doing that and will not get a proper answer except by accident as you search.

Global flood, regional flood... no proof from any source.

Are their giants?  Where is the proof for all proof is called fake...

Age of the earth. anywhere between 6000 years and several million or more. Nothing concrete here.

And dont get into the searching of various translations of scripture for we all know that leads to little proof with the varieties out there.

Correct.  You should not be looking to science to affirm the Bible.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 13:21:30
So where are you gonna go looking for evidence?

Usually to Strong's concordance, followed by Thayer's, then to the LXX and other Bible-adjacent documents to compare word usage (which is also the method Thayer used).

It shouldn't actually be very hard to figure out where something is used figuratively.  Hebrew words are overloaded (they have multiple meanings), and when they are figurative it is virtually always one of the other meanings of the word or a closely related word.

As I said in the other thread, this is a question of literature, not science.  The question should be answered by looking at literature.

Jarrod

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 10:53:04
It is difficult to believe that a person claiming to be a Christian, and is a moderator on a Christian forum could type out that sentence.  The rest of the world outside of Noah and his family and the animals in the ark experienced the flood.  And all of them died.  The Bible isn't at all ambiguous on that.  Perhaps you, and Wycliffe, and 4WD should read Genesis again.  Try Chapter 7.

Whether much of Genesis is literal or metaphorical, is the least of the Christians worry today, the bigger issue is the judgment and the division created by the know-it-all's. Have fun with that. 

Quote from: Alan on Wed Oct 12, 2022 - 18:20:52Whether much of Genesis is literal or metaphorical, is the least of the Christians worry today, the bigger issue is the judgment and the division created by the know-it-all's. Have fun with that.

Alan, as a believer for almost fifty years, I have never intertained thoughts that any part of Genesis is to be understood  metaphorical/symbolic. I have not seen one section that would allow me to take Genesis in any other way, except literally. I would agree that hidden in Genesis are some beautiful allegorical teachings, that are explain for us in the NT, such as Galatians 4 concerning Abraham's two sons~one by a free woman, the other by the bond woman. There are others, but an allegory and metaphorical teachings are not one and the same, as you know. So, no problem for me, and I would say for most other believers, who by faith alone trust in God's word and not in our own wisdom wondering how this, or that, came into being in just a moment of time within 6 24 ours days, even though God truly could have caused this to take place instantly, yet for our sakes God did it step by step. Nothing is impossible with God, not one thing. There is much I cannot explain, and neither do I have to, IF I could, then I would be like God, and would not need Him, but, everything is far beyond what I can even ponder, so much higher is God's wisdom than all folks who have ever lived join hand and hand could even begin to understand.

Quote the bigger issue is the judgment and the division created by the know-it-all's.

This is true with all scriptures, not just Genesis.  That's why we are call to be noble Christians and search out the truth looking to God's word for our position on every subject, that we are confronted with.