Featured genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo

I really have thought about it and have no problem, because I understand from the context Jesus is referring to the creation and marriage of the first couple; it has no bearing on how long of a beginning there was.

No, I did not say you said God created on day seven, only that your wholesale criticism of the bit I wrote regarding day seven makes it sound that way, and it doesn’t help when you also lump it with the days of creation, since, as the day of rest, day seven is distinctly different.

Nonsense, I’m not rejecting Jesus’ words at all. However, I do reject your extreme statements (“very beginning of creation”) and so do you, since you really mean near the end of day six, just like I do and just like Jesus does. Interpreting it to mean the beginning of the (nearly) completed creation would be closer to correct, no matter how long the days turned out to be.

What’s funny to me is that, despite your criticisms of what I’ve said, you know you yourself and everyone else will turn cartwheels, do backflips, and endure all manner of contortions to harmonize Scripture where two straightforward readings may seem to conflict. So you needn’t adopt a holier than thou attitude here.

 

Well, bypassing your unwarranted, nonsensical accusations for now, I’m intrigued with the rest. You mentioned the Church trying to reconcile Scripture with various theories. How do you imagine the stand of Galileo fits in with your view of such things here?

 

I've heard it explained this way, and it makes sense to me. The deep was 'the heavens and the earth.' In other words, water was the raw material from which all creation was formed. Day 1, God spoke the waters and light into existence.

In the center of the deep, the various elements are being fused. On day two, the expanse is created which divided the deep into two sets of waters, those above the expanse, and those below.

The waters under the expanse are the earth being given form.

 

Actually, the Scriptures are geocentric.

 

The creation of the universe and even the earth is not discussed in Gen 1. The first item to be created is light in v3.

 

Know what the words mean first, from Young's Literal Translation

Gen 1:1¶
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
Gen 1:2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Gen 1:3¶
and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

We know Heaven (God's Throne, Cherubs..)existed before Gen 1 creation by Job 38:7

 

Really.

Show me something heliocentric.

 

I agree that secular and Christian scientists of the day generally held to the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic model. It was the scientific theory of the day, and had been for nearly two millennia. However, the Catholic and Protestant Churches (but not so much the Orthodox?) were both locked into that geocentric model with their interpretation of Scripture.

Thus, while the Catholics were more willing to consider Galileo’s hypothesis scientifically, they were not in a position to do so theologically. To their credit, the Catholics were not so locked into their geocentric theology that they claimed infallibility on it. Too bad they could not just come out and say at the time that the Bible is not concerned with astronomical centricity, just as it is not concerned with the actual age of the earth or of the universe.

Unfortunately, the Protestants seem to have been even more locked in. Seems the business of considering one’s interpretation rather than Scripture itself to be infallible isn’t limited to the pope.

 

Interesting. Did you leave out part of the Sailhamer quote, the part that supposedly supports your point? Or perhaps you are trying to make a different point than I was expecting you to make? The problem is that you did not say what you think Sailhamer disagrees with. He is not one of my sources.

Saying that the seventh day is exactly the same as the other six, and that Moses treats it exactly the same as the others does not well represent what is written in Exodus 20, nor in Genesis 1 & 2. I could say that much more strongly, and perhaps I should have.

 

In the Bible, that is.

 

It is actually focused on the sinners and redemption, It is a story of sin from Lucifer to man, from the beginning to the end of this physical existence It is focused on the God's pardon of sin. Much of this is on earth.

 

It is not the beginning of the creation process, but the first establishment of man. male and female, Man was not in beginning of creation, but when man was formed, the beginning of manking, meaning always , two sexes were established.

 

Yes, I know it is hard to accept another viewpoint; we all have that struggle. Perhaps none of this makes sense to you, but I’m not trying to convince you to adopt my view. I do, however, urge you to re-evaluate how you apply judgmental standards.

Note that in the process of discussion you yourself do not seem bothered that you: 1) added to Jesus’ words (you added “very” to “beginning of creation”), 2) denied any difference between two conspicuously different things (the days of creating vs the day of resting), 3) took another person’s words completely out of context (mine--see your “bingo” business), 4) considered yourself to be superior in the process (maybe you should fear God a bit more).

 

but Mark says in Greek, "from but the beginning of the creation male and female God made"

of the creation is one word, "act of founding" "establishment", "institution" "ordinance"

It is not referring to Gen 1:3 but the order of mankind

You misapply one word, then create doctrine contradictory to other scripture. Man had to have a place, Everything had to have a place, from grass to fish, There is an order of creation. Man was FORMED at the end of the creation period.
Man was not created, Mankind, or order to society was.