Creation vs. Creationism

[Thundarstick]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

I know people who reject the WHOLE Bible based on the creation account being false! For ME, if the creation account isn't accurate as portrayed by Jesus Christ and the apostles the Bible is a lie. It is truly the corner stone of the Bible!
It's enough for ME to to say "I don't know how God did it, or what laws ruled during the creation", but I must BELIEVE it's so! I don't have to explain it any more than you can explain how water was turned to wine, sick and crippled where healed, that Jesus bid Lazarus come forth from a tomb alive again, that He commanded the winds and the rain, walked on water, and commanded demons! Try and explain any of these accounts in the Bible against the natural laws that govern us! Are they lies, "much to do about nothing", or cornerstones of our faith as witnessed by these same men who believed the 6 day creation, or are these lies as well because they can't be explained in the context of natural law? Have you seen, or know of anyone who walks on water, or raised himself from death?

[Ickisrulz]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

The writers of the Bible did not use the same language we use today in our culture. I am not meaning English vs Hebrew or Greek. Their language was not precise like ours. The repeated use of "40" in the Bible most certainly did not mean precisely 40. It meant a complete period of time. The number "1000" was used to describe a large amount rather than a specific amount. Many examples like this exist and "day" could very well have meant just a period of time. This is not bending scripture, it is understanding how the author used language to express thoughts.

FWIW, the Bible doesn't even have a word meaning "forever" or "everlasting." The original wording is "age" or "end of the ages." See, not very precise.

[Thundarstick]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

[Ickisrulz]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

Well, the Bible is pretty clear that Lazarus was raised from the dead. So I doubt any believer would suggest he wasn't.

But when it comes to days of creation, or many other issues, we should attempt to understand what the Bible is not saying as much as what it is saying. When ground truth trumps what we think scripture is saying we need to take another look.

[Char-Gar]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

Factoid: There is a mosque built on the site of the tomb of Lazarus. It get into it, steps were cut into the bedrock beside the mosque. The original entrance was plugged when the mosque was built.

[Char-Gar]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

I know people who reject the WHOLE Bible based on the creation account being false! For ME, if the creation account isn't accurate as portrayed by Jesus Christ and the apostles the Bible is a lie. It is truly the corner stone of the Bible!
It's enough for ME to to say "I don't know how God did it, or what laws ruled during the creation", but I must BELIEVE it's so! I don't have to explain it any more than you can explain how water was turned to wine, sick and crippled where healed, that Jesus bid Lazarus come forth from a tomb alive again, that He commanded the winds and the rain, walked on water, and commanded demons! Try and explain any of these accounts in the Bible against the natural laws that govern us! Are they lies, "much to do about nothing", or cornerstones of our faith as witnessed by these same men who believed the 6 day creation, or are these lies as well because they can't be explained in the context of natural law? Have you seen, or know of anyone who walks on water, or raised himself from death?

The people you reference were ancient Jews that understood the Genesis creation narrative and you do not. You are trying to inflict a modern understanding on an ancient theological narrative that they all knew was not a literal scientific explanation of the physical creation process. That was just not a matter of interest to them. They knew the run rose in the east and set in the west, but they didn't care about how that happened. They knew that God was creator and that was all they were concerned about.

Start with the notion that none of those folks spoke a word of English and in fact nobody did, for English as a language did not exist. If you have ever tried to master another language you will quickly find out that there are many words that can't be translated word for word. A translation is an approximation of what the concept would be like in English. Translators often disagree on what a word, phrase or sentence means in the context it was written or spoken. This is not bending or twisting words.

Our Christian faith does not stand or fall, on your understanding of the ancient Jewish narrative. You have a "house of cards" understanding of Scripture that fails to take into context the time it was written, by whom it was written, to whom it was written and it's purpose. You seem to think if the literal six solar day story is understood any other way that literally, then everything else falls down around our ears.

In case you think I am some theological liberal poo-pawing the miracles of Jesus that is not true. I am quite conservative, but neither am I ignorant when it comes to understanding the intend and meaning of Scripture.

I have never found any conflict between science and scripture when both a properly understood. They ask and answer different questions. People of faith ask "why" and science asks "how". They only come in conflict when people insist that scripture asked "why" and then comes back with the answer "why and how".

[Wayne Smith]

One of the principles of understanding Scripture is to attempt to understand it as the original hearers did. That means within their culture, their level of understanding and knowledge of the world, and their assumptions about the world. In the OT theirs was not a precise scientific culture and Hebrew is far from a precise language. To read precision into this culture is as much a mistake as Heinlein's mistake to read Pi into the instructions to build the lake in the Tabernacle area. It is reading our culture into a document that does not fit our culture. This is true not only for the Creation account but for all Scripture.

It is for this reason that I have studied the first century BCE and CE in order to attempt to understand the NT. There is a lot to know.

[Blackwater]

I have never understood why some people are so consumed with the craving to know why/how? Who cares? Does knowing how or why God made everything put food on the table? Understanding physics can put food on the table. Understanding how to conduct yourself so as to receive God's blessing can put food on the table. Establishing a factual timeline does nothing but create argument. There's no money in it. No food in it.

Questioning "WHY" can be a good thing but if your mind is forever bent on it, if you constantly dwell on it when you could be doing something constructive, you're accomplishing NOTHING. Science trying to unravel the mystery of the universe does nothing. They could put that money and effort studying the stars into finding a way to save lives at a Shriner's hospital or St. Judes...or find a REAL solution for the common cold. Who gives a cråp what's going on billions of light years away where you can do NOTHING about it. People are forever worrying about things they will NEVER master or control. Jesus addressed this in Luke 12:25.

There's nothing wrong with study and discovery, we NEED that. There's nothing with looking for answers but people are wasting their lives looking for something means absolutely SQUAT. I don't care how God made anything. I don't care why or when. I'm here. I'll make the best use of my time feeding myself and as time and money allows, helping others to feed themselves, the ones that deserve it anyway. Any time not spent furthering those ends are spent entertaining myself.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. It's the way many folks see it too, basically. One of the reasons I think the world has been allowed to deteriorate the way it has, though, is BECAUSE so many have ceased seeking answers, so they don't have the answers to questions when they're challenged, and consequently, many who may have been converted have given themselves over to disbelief. And were we not directed by Christ himself to "study to show thyself approved?" Does not "study" involve asking questions and seeking answers?

And yes, there IS much disagreement among believers about many questions, but disagreement doesn't in and of its own self, create problems. It's only when disagreement mixes with EGO that problems arise. It's when ego enters the fray that the good quality of discussion/argument becomes unpleasant and dysfunctional.

Since man has first started asking questions, which was near instantly after he was created, I think, we've been constantly trying to understand our world and ourselves and so very much more. It's inevitible, I believe, that we do this. It is however, NOT inevitable that we do it in a dysfunctional and unpleasant manner. I've had many arguments about things where egos did not enter into the picture. Those were fertile ground for discovery of new thoughts and ways of seeing things, if we allow them to be.

Only those, though, who are REALLY seeking answers and true edification, CAN argue without ego entering the fray and messing up the whole situation. Some argue from the perspective that "I'm right and that's all I want or need to know." This isn't really studying to show ourselves approved. It's stopping study, and beginning a dysfunctional, pride-filled argument - the kind that CANNOT edify anyone involved.

These kinds of "arguments" are common today, so much so that the word "argument" has pretty well come to mean an unpleasant dispute. But arguing doesn't necessarily HAVE to be that way. Argument CAN be, and often is, rather an interesting and absorbing endeavor, IF of course, we allow it to be. That too, though, is a matter of will, and these "modern" days seem to deny even such a possibility's existence! And therein lies the problem. When we stop arguing, the only thing left is fighting, which is why so many arguments today really only amount to the preparations for a "fight." Usually, it just stays verbal, but occasionally, can get violent physically. A crazed Bernie Sanders supporter recently shot several congressmen and their cohorts simply because they disagreed with his thoughts!

But here, more than anywhere else I've seen on the net or elsewhere, we seem to have a good many very serious and sometimes spirited discussions, but .... nobody seems to get too peeved in them. This is something that makes me very proud of the folks here, and of their essential character, and even though I haven't met any of them personally, I think I'd trust most of them with my very life! That's not something this ol' country boy does very often these days!

PC theology has decreed that everyone drop their true feelings and only express what others WANT to hear! What a contrived set of rules THAT is!!!! When has man EVER been ABLE to live up to such a set of insensible "rules????" We all have had very different lives, different experiences, challenges and assets going into our lives. How cold one EVER expect to get uniformity out of such a diverse group of people and experiences as makes up ANY nation? Even when folks thought alike on most of the bigger issues, there was MUCH diversity of opinion, evaluation and views. Now? It seems the more PC theology has tried to force folks into all "singing off the same sheet of music," the more hostility it has generated and the more insensibility and madness that has resulted! This is the exact OPPOSITE of what it purported to strive to do on its initial inception and promotion ... but .... there it is, right in front of us today, and it's everywhere!

Nothing really good has ever resulted without some real and often (usually?) VERY "spirited" argument! Why would we go to war, for instance, without hasing things out, the pros and cons and other related matters? Who could, in good conscience, NOT hash it all out before acting?

But at the same time, arguing is completely useless unless it's allowed to come to a reasonable conclusion. The ONLY purpose of argument is to settle some issue, is it not? And if it can't be settled, then it CAN be possible to settle the matter by disagreeing PEACABLY. This is far from impossible, and I've ended some arguments that way in the past, and later come to realize (at long last!) what the other side was saying and I had misunderstood!

Studying to show ourselves approved is NECESSARY, and some amount of reasonable and rational argument is a natural and inevitable part of that. If we don't argue, for whatever reason we decide to not do that, we commit ourselves to where we are now, and cast aside any chance of growth or deeper understanding. This, then, in its turn, means that when we're challenged by unbelievers, we are more likely to be unable to answer their questions. This leaves them with little alternative than to think we don't really know what we're talking about, and all too often, results in our walking away or "shaking the dust," which just further convinces the profane that what we have is NOT real, and that even if it were, we don't understand it ourselves.

THIS is what REALLY matters! Satan is a mocker, and he causes unbelievers to mock us and declaim us in many and varied ways. But his most effective tool in keeping his numbers large, is directly challenging us, and asking us questions we don't really know the answer to. If we more regularly answered these questions with thoughtful and easily understood principles, what a different world we might have today!!!! And the only way to do that is for folks who have little time to be edified by those silver tongued few who really, really know the answers BECAUSE they've spent the time and gone to the trouble to learn the answers, and have NOT backed away from serious challenges, but stuck with them to find the REAL answers. God bless these hallowed few! They are the ones that CAN, if we let them, illuminate us well beyond what we'd ever achieve by simply just reading the Bible. I for one, have learned more in simple discussions of everyday things with those who see them as "gifts" than I'll ever learn from those who see questions as just "one more problem" in life.

Just because arguments typically take a common form and result in a common manner, does NOT mean they HAVE to be that way. THIS is the value of good, beneficial and spirited and serious argument! But we have to know the difference, and be able to DO it like it ought'a be done. And that's not always easy, but it's always beneficial, if we simply LET it be. I'm so very glad and thankful that so many here CAN do it the RIGHT way! God bless all of you!

[NoAngel]

Blackwater, good post. I went to a church camp some as a kid. Had a younger minister tell me once: "Don't believe the old codgers when they say don't question things and NEVER question God. Question everything.....but do so out of ignorance and always be humble when doing so. God will make his point and you will understand. ....but do so out of spite with an arrogant attitude and you'll get a heel of brass grinding you into dust."

[Blackwater]

I don't mean to 'hog' the space here, but just played back a DVR'd hour long treatment of Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" off satellite TV. In it, Hawking himself explained much of the story relating to his book on Creation, that concluding by the expression of his opinion that God was NOT necessary for the universe's existence, the Big Bang, or any of it. His theory is that the only things needed for a recipe for the creation of the universe are matter, energy and space. But since Einstein has pretty well proven beyond much doubt, that mass and energy are two versions of the same thing, only energy and space are necessary for the universe to come into existence. And without going though all his assertions and conclusions, I'll just conclude his treatise of the question of God by noting that he has concluded that because in quantum (sub-atomic) physics, particles CAN indeed seem to appear from nothing, that the same is possible in the non-quantum "bigger picture." This is, at best, a pretty wild and unsubstantiated theory!!! Taking one set of rules, and applying them to another whole set of parameters, without citing any sort of REASON for doing so, seems to me to be mostly wishful thinking on his part. I realize he knows more about the universe and physics and the universe than I do, but he has no corner on the much more simple principles of reason and rationality.

It seems to me that he began his "search" by assuming that God does not indeed exist, and worked from that position towards an explanation as to WHY He might not have to exist. His pathway in his reasoning seems too "goal oriented" for lack of a better word, for me to take to heart, and seriously consider very deeply. Does he have some deep-seated resentment of God due to his paralyzed condition? It's a legitimate question, for I've seen others who've taken that tactic after much lesser blows to their physicality. But I have no answer because I can't know what is really going on inside his mind without MUCH more info! But it's a legitimate question, nevertheless, since it's occurred, and obviously so, in others.

What I do know is that he absolutely leaves out anything that MIGHT lead him to other paths of inquiry. Since man has first existed, he has sensed that there really IS something out there that is MUCH bigger and more pervasive than we could ever be. And for millenea, we have studied and tried to discern what that "bigger thing" might be, and is.

He has never addressed the prophesies, or how or why they have been so accurate. These are but a few of the things that have led folks to belief for millenea before science came up with explanations for lots of phenomena, and proved at least some of the theories they've created really DO seem to be true.

And so many scientists now, believe, and see physics and all of science and creation as proving the existence of God, and the NECESSITY that he MUST exist! I don't know what Hawking's problem is, but he's long been anti-God in his beliefs. Before he became an invalid, he was reportedly quite a rounder, at least for a "science guy." So we're given a choice to believe those who are not hostile to the scientific view that God MUST in fact resist, and those who seem to have a very long-term disinclination to accept God's existence. Simple logic tells me that if someone has a natural or any other kind of disinclination to accept God's existence, that's probably not a good place to go to for advice on the matter. That much seems so simple a dunce could "get it."

And if God really DOES exist, and we are "created in His image," doesn't it naturally follow that He'd give us SOME way by which we could sense and come to know Him? At least to the degree that our mortal minds can in this realm of time, space and matter???

We are at a point in the development of science, that MANY things point towards the NECESSITY that there be a God who DOES indeed direct things. It's even been pretty well proven mathematically that the liklihood of all the details of earth's formation, as it's now generally agreed to have had to be, could not have occurred without some "Divine Guiding Hand" being involved! Take all the things that have had to occur for earth to be habitable, and for us to exist, and you have a number that in terms of probabilities, is so unlikely that nobody would bet against them in Las Vegas! And yet, so many stake their immortal souls on their not being right or valid!!!

Truly, man is just as willful, if not moreso, than the Bible says he is, and shows him to be, historically! So no matter how close science comes to "proving" that God MUST exist, there's still that gap, though it's gotten smaller and smaller over time, that MUST be crossed by simple Faith. If we conclude that the Bible's being right so very often and consistently is "proof" of God's existence, then science is not necessary for us as individuals. That's a given. But for those "agnostics" and other unbelievers, some serious knowledge of these things MAY well fascinate enough unbelievers to make a significant difference in our world, IF only they're known and used in the right times and in the right way.

And the more certain knowlege via physics and other sciences (there are many fields that are coming to recognize a seeming "guiding hand" in science now), the more fully and incontrovertibly we can be of our own beliefs, and this cannot do anything but strengthen us as we encounter the challenges endemic of our life here in our time and in this place.

It is said that "Knowledge is Power," and I reckon that's true. It seems incontrovertible to me, but ... there's always someone who seems to counter anything these days. And the more knowledge we have, the more certain we CAN be of our position, and our efforts, and of our destiny. Who who is human cannot appreciate that????

[Char-Gar]

Blackwater, good post. I went to a church camp some as a kid. Had a younger minister tell me once: "Don't believe the old codgers when they say don't question things and NEVER question God. Question everything.....but do so out of ignorance and always be humble when doing so. God will make his point and you will understand. ....but do so out of spite with an arrogant attitude and you'll get a heel of brass grinding you into dust."

Question God, argue with God, get mad at God and none of it will cause Him to punish you in any way. The nature of God is that of gracious love.

[popper]

Stephen Hawking is basically a mathmatician who calculated a lot of cosmic orbit, recessed them through time and came to the conclusion that there was a pint origin to what we call the universe, then procedded to concoct a theory that the point of origin came through a 'worm hole' from another universe. His hypothesis falls apart when you ask where the 'other' universe came from. Same argument of those that say life on earth came from extraterrestrials. I know a felow that stated when he meets God he would ask how Einstein's relativity theory works. I ask - so if you find out, what will you do with that knowledge? Build a space ship? Won't need it - as far as we know. Or you could argue Calvinism vs Armenian-ism. Won't know which is correct until the 'fat lady sings'. A slight danger in Calvinism as I see it, we can become 'lazy' in our evangelism.
New earth/old earth - does it make a difference? Like Hawking, attempts to regress history that we know can produce erroneous conclusions. Aka, the dinosaurs. The TV version of 'string' theory is bogus.
As g=for Galgatha/skull - again what difference does it make? If it truly is the location of 'special' circumstances, it is for a special reason. I have read some 'theories stating that is the location of the entrance to the Garden. Cute idea but we really DON"T know.

[Snow ninja]

Question God, argue with God, get mad at God and none of it will cause Him to punish you in any way. The nature of God is that of gracious love.

And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

[Char-Gar]

And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

You don't understand grace do you? Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". In Jesus we see the nature and character of God. The God you reference in Numbers bears no resemblance to the God I know in Christ. You sure you are not talking about Allah?

[popper]

Arron made a golden calf, God didn't like that. Israelites walked in the 'wilderness' till the 'bad' generation died so only the young went into Canaan. Those who don't believe in Jesus got tossed into darkness. Yes, God does righteously punish.

[Snow ninja]

The God you reference in Numbers bears no resemblance to the God I know in Christ. You sure you are not talking about Allah?

Where do I start... It's my belief that we don't have 2 different gods- same God, just more palatable in the new testament.

I don't understand how I could be referencing allah when it was a passage from the good book.

And lastly, why is it, anyone with a different view from yours is automatically a Muslim? I don't believe you can pick and choose which parts you want to follow and/or recognize. Just because he did some "not so lovely" things before, but is now "better". You can't just ignore the fact that he still did them.

That's just my view on things, neither one of us is right or wrong here, there is no right or wrong. Otherwise, just the Catholics are right or just the Baptists. In the end though, I guess it just comes down to what your comfortable with, or what you need. Some people need the fire and brimstone, while others need the raised hands, and still some need the speaking in tongues (still trying to wrap my head around that one...) It's whatever works for the individual. Anyway, thank you for letting me express my views and vent for a bit.

[Ickisrulz]

And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

God is no different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. He didn't get better, he is the same.

The Bible is clear that God will violently remove wickedness from among his people. At the point you are referencing in Numbers some people disbelieved and rebelled after seeing significant manifestations of God's existence, power and care. Their actions and attitudes would have been a detriment to the entire nation. They had to be removed for the sake of the others. This is the exact reason why the Canaanites had to be exterminated: their wickedness and their negative influence. Israel's failure to do so after Joshua's generation died proved this beyond any doubt.

Another similar example is Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. This couple decided to rebel and lie to God (via the Apostles) even after seeing miracles that showed, without question, God's existence, power and care. Their removal from the Church was necessary so their influence would be eliminated.

Eventually unbelievers and the wicked must be removed from the earth. God will do this because of his love for his people. God cannot allow the wicked to influence or negatively effect his people.

All of this is a far cry from a Christian man or woman who questions what is going on in their life and the world around them and complaining to God in an honest fashion.

[NoAngel]

God is no different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. He didn't get better, he is the same.

The Bible is clear that God will violently remove wickedness from among his people. At the point you are referencing in Numbers some people disbelieved and rebelled after seeing significant manifestations of God's existence, power and care. Their actions and attitudes would have been a detriment to the entire nation. They had to be removed for the sake of the others. This is the exact reason why the Canaanites had to be exterminated: their wickedness and their negative influence. Israel's failure to do so after Joshua's generation died proved this beyond any doubt.

I have to agree. Based on what I see when I read Jehova and Jesus are polar opposites with respect to attitude. God cleansed with fire and water and took no lip service from men.
Jesus took a totally opposite approach. I'm somewhat awed at his ability to do so. He could have easily unleashed the power he wielded and laid waste to everything. Can't say I would have, the first time I seen that cat of nine tails there would have a smoking crater of ash and slag.

[Ickisrulz]

I have to agree. Based on what I see when I read Jehova and Jesus are polar opposites with respect to attitude. God cleansed with fire and water and took no lip service from men.
Jesus took a totally opposite approach. I'm somewhat awed at his ability to do so. He could have easily unleashed the power he wielded and laid waste to everything. Can't say I would have, the first time I seen that cat of nine tails there would have a smoking crater of ash and slag.

When reading the Old Testament, people often see and concentrate on the acts of judgement. But they don't seem to pick up on how God pleaded with his people to turn back to him. At times it was like he was begging them to repent. When his people did not turn from their evil, God had no choice but to act.

Jesus read from Isaiah in Luke chapter 4. The passage he read discusses the Messiah's mission.

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”…. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” – ESV

He intentionally left out the last line: to proclaim...the day of vengeance of our God. His time on earth was not a time of punishment. It appears that his Second Coming will include the remainder of his mission.

If you've seen the Son you've seen the Father. If you've seen the Father you've seen the Son.

[Blackwater]

As to being angry at God, I suspect it's more related to our attitudes in that anger, and maybe our assumptions (right or wrong) that determines whether it angers Him or not? Just a thought. He always loves us, that is a given. But yes, he CAN get angry with us, too, if we bring that on ourselves. But even when He's angry, He still loves us, just like our parents did when we aroused their ire. They didn't suddenly quit loving us just because we'd made them momentarily angry, did they? Certainly no good parents would do that!