abiogenesis or special creation?

[Faith alone]

I don't find anything in the text saying that "some other families existed at the time and from one of them Cain got his wife". When the text tells us that there are only two humans - Adam and Eve and that THEY are the ones having children - why in the world would we then invent "and then from some unknown place other families started - not descended from Adam".

In fact all the lineages of the Bible going back to the time of Adam ALWAYS show the descent from Adam alone.

Where in the world would sound exegesis get us to "and other sources for the human race were there besides Adam"???

FOA, Bob, remember that I personally fo not hold to such views. But I do not like how many Christians put down those who do as if they are being unChristian and disrespecting the Bible.

My point is simply that suddenly we are told that Cain - Adam & Eve's first son - is looking for a wife. Without any listing of the lineage of his wife, which the Bible is so careful to do in other places, it is not surprising that people come up with other possibilities.

A strictly literal approach does not yield two chronological sequences -- it only shows one because the "details" are very important. One is a chronology the other narrative is not but it ADDs more detail on some points than you had in the chronology given.

The combination of the two gives a far more complete picture than either one by itself.

You said it yourself - a "strictly literal." Why not even consider the possibility that God did not intend Genesis to beread in such a manner? How about those who take that position?

TE always starts with "Evolution is true" THEN goes to the Bible to try to make it fit. TE never starts with the text and says "Hey look - for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth" is not true according to the Bible it is just allegory inserted into law.

Perhaps that is true. But that is your opinion on it. I have never heard a TEist say that or anything even remotely like it.

In fact - allegory is not being inserted into Law in the case of Exodus 20 and it is impossible to turn it to that purpose. The problem is that the 4th commandment clamps and iron-clad link between the events of creation week in Gen 1-2:3 and the literal week at Sinai -- it is impossible to separate them. You have to start by "wanting to find a way out of it" to even make the effort. And unless you can be successful at breaking that link there is no way to get Gen 1-2:3 to be allegorical.

Exodus 20:11 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.

This is the first thing anyone has shared recently based specifically on scripture. I agree that this is atrong argument for taking a 6 24-hr. literal view of Genesis 1. But that still does not require that the universe be only 1000s of years old. Such a view assumes that when God "created" the stars, etc. that they were brought into existence at that time, instead of becoming visible to the earth's surface then. And even Hugh Ross has a view that God took 6 days in which at certain times God created. He has gaps between those creative acts.
[/FONT]

"Unbiblical" because inventing the idea that "God really meant to say -- God spoke and then after many days lights began to appear in the heavens, then after many more days the earth appeared formless and void, then after many more days the dry land appeared" - is pure eisegesis. It does not fit the "evening and morning" reading of the text as each set is called "one day".

Perhaps. but you are assuming a strictly literal reading. Let's face it, those who hold to a Day-Age viewpoint or a TE view do not do so. And that is NOT because they have a lesser view of scripture, but because they believe God did not intend the text to be read literally historically or scientifically in some places. So they believe they are reading it as intended, and that we are forcing our theology upon the text.

You can not argue that "making wild stuff up as I read the Bible is biblical as long as I am abusing the text of scripture itself as I do it and not some other book". That does not make it "biblical" but just my interpretation. That is the entire reason we have the concept of eisegesis vs exegesis. We want to show when someone is simply coming up with an excuse to insert their own bias into the text - vs actually reading the text for what IT says.

Without the evolution model for TE - there is no TE insert into the text.

Bob,

TE or Day-agers believe that God spoke truth - which aligns with the truth that science discovers as well. It may take many trial-and-errors before science does get it right, but we should not assume that scientists are intentionally trying to distort the truth. I do not believe that for a second. If both are seeking truth, TE and Day-agers are expecting some correspondence. It is NOT a matter of compromising the Word at all or of forcing it to fit, but of considering different possibilities for what God had intended.

I mean, let's face it. Down through history people have been trying to determine the best way to interpret prophesy in terms of Christ's return. They keep changing things as we get closer to the end times. Why should we be surprised if similar things happen in origins? Personally, I'm just keeping an open mind to other possibilities. I'm a pan-tribulationist... why not the same considering origins?

IF God had added moral law saying "each Tuesday you are to clap your hands 3 times just as the trees clap their hands exactly 3 times each tuesday at 4 pm" then you would have a hard time arguing "He is just being silly there".

But as it is - it is placed in Psalms in a way that does not demand an exact link to that same literal event in our lives as law.

But in this case - God gave this 7 day creation week as a literal event cycle in moral law.

Hard to ignore.

But again, since a day with the Lord is as a 1000 years..., why assume a literal intended meaning there?

<snip>
That is a very specific detail that needs to be "inserted" it can not be read from the text and there is no lineage ever given showing anyone to come from some other source than Adam. Furthermore in Romans 5 Paul flatly denies that such is true - he argues that all mankind descends from Adam and so in the fall of ADAM all mankind is condemned. Having other humans condemned by God who are NOT related to Adam inserts not only myth into Gen 1 it attributes injustice to God. This is why God condemns the practice of making those little "Additions" to scripture.

But the contrast is instructive. The first detail you give can actually be read from the text - the second has to be invented. And the second

Indeed - it would mean that only the descendants of Adam are sinners only they are to be married to each other only they have the Gospel for it only goes to the children of Adam according to Romans 5.

The idea that you can toy-with and add things to scripture with "no effect" is what is getting into trouble here.

The Bible is a "house of cards" not a battleship. If you remove its foundations or toy with it - you destroy the integrity of the delicate links and what you end up with is an "invention of man" not the, complex, intricate, informative, authorotative Word of God. In Mark 7 the Jews elected to "toy with" the 5th commandment in honor of the temple and the church of God. Their intent was to simply make an alteration but not break it. But Christ said "in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

Again, I am not a TEist. But do they not also agree (some) that Adam was the 1st human being?

Romans 5:12-14

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

Thru 1 man - death entered the world. TEists agree with that statement.

My points are simply that TEists or Day-agers are not taking such a far-fetched position as often claimed.

FA

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I don't find anything in the text saying that "some other families existed at the time and from one of them Cain got his wife". When the text tells us that there are only two humans - Adam and Eve and that THEY are the ones having children - why in the world would we then invent "and then from some unknown place other families started - not descended from Adam".

In fact all the lineages of the Bible going back to the time of Adam ALWAYS show the descent from Adam alone.

Where in the world would sound exegesis get us to "and other sources for the human race were there besides Adam"???

FOA, Bob, remember that I personally fo not hold to such views. But I do not like how many Christians put down those who do as if they are being unChristian and disrespecting the Bible.

My point is simply that suddenly we are told that Cain - Adam & Eve's first son - is looking for a wife. Without any listing of the lineage of his wife, which the Bible is so careful to do in other places, it is not surprising that people come up with other possibilities.

My point is that using the basic principles of exegesis is far more useful than you are allowing and the consequences of ignoring it far more damaging.

The Jews of Mark 7 had many good yarns to spin about why they were right to "sit in the seat of Moses" and bend a rule here and there - without having to call it "bending the rules". There has never been a shortage of stories to tell about why one should turn the text one way or the other.

But the whole point of the methods regarding exegesis is to step out of the "I think it should be turned the other way around" game ad nausium - is to provide a mechanism where ALL sides can step out of their entrenched bias and evaluate the text using objective methods.

In the example you have given above - it is very easy to see from the links of the texts pointing back to this one - that there is only one way to connect all the dots. It is also easy to point out that Adam had daughters but we are not given their names. Does that mean they had no names? Hardly.

Also it is easy for the reader to admit when the Bible states that Adam is the head of the human race in Gen 1, 2 and Romans 5 - that it takes a great deal of story telling to come up with other Adam's who are sinless and also the head of other races and who also get kicked out of the Garden or come under literal condemnation of God for sinning - ALL of them deceived by their wives??

In any case - once the yarn starts spining you soon come to the point of needing another bible and an entirely different Gospel to support it.

Sticking with what is IN the text and not adding new details that are major shifts away from the meaning of the text - turns out to be the only way the text holds together.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Faith alone]

Bob,

Sorry, but I've run out of time tonight. Let me simply say that i agree... when the text is intended as such. But if it was intended differently, for example ,as in a parable, then we have to apply different exegetical principles. And do not assume that they are reading into the text (eisogesis).


FA

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
A strictly literal approach does not yield two chronological sequences -- it only shows one because the "details" are very important. One is a chronology the other narrative is not but it ADDs more detail on some points than you had in the chronology given.

The combination of the two gives a far more complete picture than either one by itself.

You said it yourself - a "strictly literal." Why not even consider the possibility that God did not intend Genesis to beread in such a manner? How about those who take that position?

Exegesis demans that we admit to what the obvious meaning is to the first order primary audience of the Author. Everyone agrees that Moses' readers knew what "evening and morning - ONE day" would mean.

Even the TE group (as you pointed out) concede that the primary audience could not possibly read Gen 1-3 and come up with TE. It just is not in the text.

Everyone agrees that the first order primary audience is going to get a YEC story out of the text -- no question about it. And that is the first rule of being objective in this case. "Regardless of what you would prefer - what would the primary intended audience have understood" - is the question we must always ask ourselves coming to any text. Because it has to be admitted that the writer was writing to them and knew what meaning his words would convey.

This point alone stops the TE bus dead in it's tracks before we even get to the next points in the argument FOR exegesis.

The way a TE argument survives in this case is by relying on the fact that THEIR primary reader - THEIR primary audience will not pay close attention to the text because they come to the text "with a problem" to start with. Their problem is that they hold to TE and they need a way to get around the apparent problem that TE has when confronted with the text.

Everyone agrees that coming to the Gen 1-6 scenario WITHOUt an evolutionist bias of some sort - always yields YEC.

An interesting story along this line. Orthodox Jews happen to teach evolutionism - but did not always do that through the ages. So when I found an avenue for asking the Orthodox Rabbis questions I immediately asked if there was ANYTHING IN the text itself (from a Hebrew Language POV) that would allow us to go to the 4th commandment and insert the idea that "For in SIX DAYS GOD MADE" is refering to DAY with the meaning of "eons of unknown time" while "SIX days YOU shall labor" should mean six evenings and mornings. The answer I got was that the text does not argue for any such thing. The text itself is clearly a six-day hard-lock between Creation and the week at Mt Sinai.

But they believe (in this case) that tradition trumps scripture. So they "find a solution" without having to rewrite LAW as though it is "allegory".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Sorry, but I've run out of time tonight. Let me simply say that i agree... when the text is intended as such. But if it was intended differently, for example ,as in a parable, then we have to apply different exegetical principles. And do not assume that they are reading into the text (eisogesis).


FA

#1. LAW is never written in Parables and In Ex 20 the Sabbath commandment refers to the DETAILS of the Gen 1-3 account.

#2. The DETAILS of a parable are the very things that are NOT true about it -- the NT authors and OT authors continually refer back to the DETAILS of Gen 1-6.

#3. EVEN the TE groups admit that the primary audience -- historically would have gotten a YEC meaning. That means that Moses writing the text constructed it so HIS primary audience would get a YEC meaning.

Impossible to ignore this.

 

[BobRyan]

The problem of saying "IN ADAM all sin" is that this is not true if ALL are not the children of Adam.

1. Romans 5:14
   Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
   
2. 1 Corinthians 15:22
   For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
   
3. 1 Corinthians 15:45
   So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
   
4. 1 Timothy 2:13
   For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
5. 1 Timothy 2:14
   And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

 

[Faith alone]

Bob,

John MacArthur suggests using the following approach is best for Genesis 1:

The neo-Patristic method of interpretation begins with an examination of the plain literal sense and then searches for more subtle literal meanings, especially where the simple literal sense presents problems or seeming contradictions. After the literal sense has been determined to the best of our ability, we proceed to an examination of whatever spiritual meanings of the text we are scientifically able to discern. As we go along we keep in mind that the text is worded as it is partly because of its plain literal meaning and partly because of the other levels and patterns of meaning that the same words may convey. Not even the literal sense of the text can be adequately understood unless the spiritual sense has at least to some degree been discovered. It is, therefore, very important to keep in mind the neo-Patristic exegetical framework and to distinguish carefully between the different senses of the text.

The translation "in the beginning" fits the context of this opening sentence and of the entire chapter, because these words declare the absolute beginning of time. Before this initial act of creation, there was no time.

From a technical point of view the opening words of Genesis simply say that "In the beginning God created the things on high and the ground." There is a natural tendency, of course, to supply a model for these simple words. Exegetes over the centuries have interpreted haarets to mean "the earth," and they have supplied the model of a disk or a globe. But neither of these models is actually given, and, in fact, the text of Genesis places the creation of the planet earth on the third day (vv. 9-10). Similarly, most exegetes have interpreted "the things on high" to mean the material bodies in outer space high above the planet earth, but the text of Genesis places the creation of the galaxies in outer space on the second day (vv. 7-8). St. Augustine was more discerning when he identified the "things on high" to mean the angels and the "ground" to mean the most elemental matter in the following words: "Where Scripture speaks of the world's creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of 'heaven,' when it is said, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,' or perhaps rather under the name of 'light,' of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe .... Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth - and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea) ...." 10 10. St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, bk. 11, ch. 9. Eng. trans., in R.M. Hutchins ed., Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago: Wm. Benton, 1952), vol. 18, pp. 326-327.

He goes one to say

GENESIS 1:2. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; .... "Void and empty" translates the Vulgate "inanis et vacua." The Hebrew words are thû wbhû, which the Septuagint translate as "invisible and unstructured" (or "unequipped"). Vawter translates them more freely as "a formless wasteland," while indicating that literally they convey the notion of "disorder and aimlessness."12" Clifford translates them as "formless and void," while pointing out that thû literally means "without shape or form," and metaphorically "groundless or unreal." Bhû, he adds, combines with thû to make an assonant hendiadys. 13 Cornelius a Lapide, using the same model, understands these words to mean that the earth was empty of men and beasts, of plants and minerals, and of all the other things with which it would subsequently be adorned. He also brings in an interesting parallel from Wisdom 11:18: "For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form ...."14 The Septuagint word here is amórphou ("formless"), which suggests a neo-Patristic distinction regarding the literal sense of Gen 1:2. On the one hand, a macroscopic image of the earth as a disk or a globe (depending upon the educational background of readers over the centuries) is, indeed, suggested by the graphic popular wording; the text does allow the reader to interpret it on this level. The text is not teaching the origin of the universe on a technically precise level, but neither does it contradict true technical knowledge regarding the universe and its origin. On the other hand, when we substitute a model that fits what contemporary physics and astronomy seem to know about the universe (and much of what they say is provisional), we are then approaching the sacred text on the level of its subtle literal sense, and we expect to find no contradiction there. We note here on a technical level that the text is saying that the "earth" was "formless and unstructured". Taking, then, a model of modern physics, we can interpret the text as saying that, on the most elementary subatomic level, the "earth" spoken of here is the primal matter which was created as the "ground" of all more organized matter and which was infinitesimal, unstructured, minimally informed, and in a totally fluid state.

St. Thomas assumes this same general model of the earth suggested by the popular terminology of the text, but he makes more careful distinctions. He points out that all matter was substantially created at the first instant of time and was subsequently fashioned according to accidental forms, among which the first in order was light. He sees two stages in the production of light. "With Dionysius [Pseudo-Dionysius], the light created on the first day was the light of the sun, formless as yet in this respect that there was already the substance of the sun having common illuminative power, but afterwards it was given special and determinate illuminative power (virtus) for particular effects."29

Now clearly this is not a "strictly literal" viewpoint. Burt it does follow the Hebrew language carefully.

FA

 

[BobRyan]

On the 4th day the text says that God created TWO great lights. Saying that He actually created them on the first or second day does not seem to fit the text.

McArthur is using 7 24 hour periods of time and not only getting the earth and it's sky (and sun and moon) created but also all of the universe.

I don't think Gen 1 is saying the whole universe was created in that 7 day period of time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Post 14 "Does Prayer Work" - We find A consistent logical view of God and His Word consistent with Atheist Darwinist Doctrines believed and accepted. Something we would EXPECT from those who consistently and logically follow the Atheist teachings holding them up as icons, idols, models for their world views on factual origins. As Dawkins states you would have to be braindead not to notice the glaring gaps between the claims of atheist darwinism for origins vs what you read in the Bible.

Rew_10
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=961796&postcount=14
God killed thousands of people Himself! So either God is not perfect or the Bible is not fact or both. And Biblical literalists will jump through hoops to make themselves believe that God AND the Bible are perfect. The Bible DEFINITELY isn't perfect and very plausible arguments can be made that the BIBLICAL God is not perfect.

Post 24 - the logical conclusion for the "former Christian" Darwin and for those Christians following Atheist Darwinist doctrines --

Rew_10
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=961839&postcount=24

If God is imperfect that make our relationship even closer! Is that not obvious? Even if He is imperfect, He has knowledge and wisdom beyond our understanding. God is there to guide us through this life and what better to do it than something that understands the fallacies that plague us? Someone who has made mistakes and failed to achieve goals?

And it's not that I don't trust the core of the Bible, it's that I do not trust the HUMAN history of the Bible. The HUMAN authors and HUMAN "caretakes" for lack of a better word. The HUMANS that passed on the stories. Every thing in life forms another dimension and eventually becomes clearer, when looked at skeptically.

Post 38 of "Does prayer work" --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=962018&postcount=38
Although I keep holding Rew_10 accountable for not knowing his Bible and not thinking through the issues raised based on the actual information in God's Word -- I have to give him credit for a few things.

#1. Given the atheist darwinist view of origins and creation and life and the origin even of our species -- the logical conclusion is that the Bible is corrupt rather than reliable and accurate. You could not possibly know what to believe just by reading the Bible. You would have to consult texts on atheist darwinism first.

#2. The "God of the Bible" then no matter how well intended would still be responsible in some way for His own Word - His own corrupt text. And if He can not manage to get His own Word right - accurate, reliable, dependable then HE himself is not "perfectly" reliable, dependable, consistent. He becomes at least as corrupt as His word since either He CAN NOT make it reliable or He corruptly chooses not to uphold the standard of His own Word.

#3. In 2Cor 4:4 we are told that the "god of this world has blinded their eyes" - and in Eph 2:1-3 we find that the lost operate according to the dictates of the "prince of the power of the air". This means that for many (in fact most according to Matt 7) Satan has a dominate role in how they view life, and God and the Bible. It is not surprising that he would promote a view of himself and his practices as though that is the way that God actually acts. In 2Thess 2 we find that he "presents himself sitting in the seat of God as though he IS God".- Hence a "corrupt god"

The argument that a corrupt god with a corrupt Word of God -- is a good match for humanity that is itself sinful, corrupt and depraved -- is one that I think fits perfectly with the "god of this World" perspectives given by God's Word speaking about the way that Satan controls the minds of humanity.

In Christ,

Bob

The intent here is to show how Atheist Darwinist doctrines have a logical conclusion themselves. My claim is that Satan is the author of Atheist Darwinism not that anyone on this board is or that Satan's ability to dupe the gullible individual into believing in Atheist Darwinism requires some lower intellect or anything like that. My claim is that Satan is very deceptive very intelligent and the fact that Christians would claim to hold to HIS stories over the fact of pure science and the pure Word of God is a telling statement on just how successful Satan can be given that both science and the Word of God disprove his stories daily.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Lesson for the reader -

Rew_10 says he is 19 which works out great for what he is doing. He boldly goes into areas of the Bible and Christianity with the same logical consistent atheist darwinist doctrines that he approaches Genesis with -- He has not learned to craftily avoid areas that expose the raw underpinnings of atheism in the Darwinist doctrines - like UTEOTW has learned to do in his avoidance of religious topics.

Rather REW_10 honestly and firmly believes that truth is better than fiction and that we would all benefit from seeing the extent of the logical conclusions that are apparent from holding to ahteist darwinism as "Fact" over the Bible as "some level of fiction". His motives in holding to atheist darwinism are still pure - being so young. He willingly states in the affirmative what older believers in atheist darwinist know they must hide in the shadows.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I kinda thought a few of the devotees to atheist darwinism would come out of the shadows on that last post.

 

[Faith alone]

On the 4th day the text says that God created TWO great lights. Saying that He actually created them on the first or second day does not seem to fit the text.

McArthur is using 7 24 hour periods of time and not only getting the earth and it's sky (and sun and moon) created but also all of the universe.

I don't think Gen 1 is saying the whole universe was created in that 7 day period of time.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

The NET has a footnote about placing those lights in the sky:
38tn tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

They say here that declaring that He placed those lights in the sky may mean simply that they were visible in the sky... not necessarily that they were created out in space somewhere. That is a very natural reading of the text. The first time I ever read Genesis that was what I thought it was saying, and I don't think I am alone in such thinking. And since the physical facts indicate that this universe has been around, and the sun, moon and galaxies, a very long time, to look for such a natural possibility for reading the text is not forcing the reading at all. So it should not be considered strange for someone to read it that way.

Now on day two God may have allowed the light to penetrate the thick, murky atmosphere. By rotating the earth he created night and day for the earth. (Venus apparently rotates at a very slow rate, and Mercury may be always facing the sun, and hance have no day-night separation.)

But I am interested in what you said above, which I emboldened. Can you clarify?

Now, just FYI, though I like many things that Hugh Ross teaches and appreciate him as an apologetist, I do not hold to his day-age type view of creation (called "progressive creation"). I hold to six 24-hr. days of creation of the earth. Now I think you mentioned Exodus earlier...

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens (sky) and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…"

This does not speak of the universe, but of the earth. But the following text convinced me that Adam (and Eve) did not come around millions of years after the earth was created:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This makes it clear that Jesus taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning." I'm just not so sure about the universe itself.

But there is another argument for why we should consider the Genesis recod to not be intended as a literal account. It's called the "framework" view. The idea is that there is a clear pattern ("framework") seen in the Genesis account and hence that the account may not have been intended as a strictly chronological record of creation. Instead, the creative events are seen as dewcxribed in a topical kind of format or order. Now I do think that there is a certain degree of chronology present. But I think we need to be open to other possibilities.


Realms created "Rulers" of realms created
Day 1: Light; day and night Day 4: Sun, moon and stars
Day 2: Sea and sky Day 5: Sea creatures; birds
Day 3: Land and vegetation Day 6: Land creatures; man

Thx,

FA

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

The NET has a footnote about placing those lights in the sky:
38tn tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

They say here that declaring that He placed those lights in the sky may mean simply that they were visible in the sky... not necessarily that they were created out in space somewhere. That is a very natural reading of the text. The first time I ever read Genesis that was what I thought it was saying, and I don't think I am alone in such thinking.

I don't think there is enough room for dancing in the entire world to get "made" to become "appeared but not actually made" in Gen 1-2:3. The word for Made is too precise to be spun any other way.

But on Day 4 "He Made TWO great lights" -- not "a zillion and two". That is the part that leads me to believe that the reference to the fact that He also MADE the stars is a parenthetical note about the fact that God had already at one time MADE the stars. In any case - the jury is still out on how "TWO" could become "a zillion and TWO" in Day 4 without having that be a parenthetical reference to a past action of God.

Day 1 - we have a single sided light source but we don't know what it is. We do know that you have rotation of the planet and a single sided light source because "evening and morning were the first day".

Day 2 - we have dry land appear - no reference to "light is allowed to penetrate the atmosphere" - no sense in making that up. STILL we have that unnamed light source on one side of earth only - rotation of the planet - and "evening and morning" being the 2nd day.

Day 3 - we have the plants - all vegetation occurs. STILL we have that unnamed light source on one side of earth only - rotation of the planet - and "evening and morning" being the 2nd day.

Day 4 - God makes TWO great lights. Exactly Two. The newly made Sun then becomes the NAMED light source on one side of earth.

Now, just FYI, though I like many things that Hugh Ross teaches and appreciate him as an apologetist, I do not hold to his day-age type view of creation (called "progressive creation"). I hold to six 24-hr. days of creation of the earth.

Me too.

Now I think you mentioned Exodus earlier...

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens (sky) and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…"

Yes I did

This does not speak of the universe, but of the earth.

Agreed. Creation Week's context is the Earth and it's solar system only.

But the following text convinced me that Adam (and Eve) did not come around millions of years after the earth was created:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

True - However since Adam was created on Day 6 and God said He created all the earth and "everything IN IT" in that literal 7 day week -- it is hard to "put Adam some place else" in that literal week that is equated exactly with the literal week at Sinai by God Himself.

This makes it clear that Jesus taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning." I'm just not so sure about the universe itself.

I agree - don't think we have a good case for a Universe that is only as old as the living systems created on Planet Earth.

But there is another argument for why we should consider the Genesis recod to not be intended as a literal account. It's called the "framework" view. The idea is that there is a clear pattern ("framework") seen in the Genesis account and hence that the account may not have been intended as a strictly chronological record of creation.

The problem is that the "pattern" IS that it is a Chronology "And evening and morning where the Nth day" is a repeated pattern. Arguing that the pattern negates the chronology is like arguing "because God's Word keeps saying it is a chronological sequence we have proof that it is not" - and that is just too much of a stretch for me to swallow.

Furthermore with the Exodus 20:8-11 "hard wire" straight to the literal week of Sinai - there is no escaping this 7 day event. God summarizes Gen 1-2:3 and then shows that this is exactly the timeline sequence that Israel is to honor and follow.

Even the evolutionist Orthodox Rabbis agree that the language in the commandment does not allow for any other spin.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Faith alone]

The NET has a footnote about placing those lights in the sky:
38tn tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

They say here that declaring that He placed those lights in the sky may mean simply that they were visible in the sky... not necessarily that they were created out in space somewhere. That is a very natural reading of the text. The first time I ever read Genesis that was what I thought it was saying, and I don't think I am alone in such thinking.

I don't think there is enough room for dancing in the entire world to get "made" to become "appeared but not actually made" in Gen 1-2:3. The word for Made is too precise to be spun any other way.

I do not know the Hebrew. But the translators of the NET Bible are superb translators. Daniel Wallace is the editor of the NET Bible. Here's the text:god was here...

Genesis 1:14, 15Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth." And it was so.

In vs. 17 it says that, "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth" Now it does not say that God "made" those lights anywhere, but that He placed them in the expanse (sky). It is reasonable to take this as causing the lights to appear. I'm talking about the stars/galaxies here, as you were below; so I think we're on the same page here. Or, perhaps I should say that the NET is on the same page.

[/FONT]

But on Day 4 "He Made TWO great lights" -- not "a zillion and two". That is the part that leads me to believe that the reference to the fact that He also MADE the stars is a parenthetical note about the fact that God had already at one time MADE the stars. In any case - the jury is still out on how "TWO" could become "a zillion and TWO" in Day 4 without having that be a parenthetical reference to a past action of God.

Day 1 - we have a single sided light source but we don't know what it is. We do know that you have rotation of the planet and a single sided light source because "evening and morning were the first day".

Day 2 - we have dry land appear - no reference to "light is allowed to penetrate the atmosphere" - no sense in making that up. STILL we have that unnamed light source on one side of earth only - rotation of the planet - and "evening and morning" being the 2nd day.

Day 3 - we have the plants - all vegetation occurs. STILL we have that unnamed light source on one side of earth only - rotation of the planet - and "evening and morning" being the 2nd day.

Day 4 - God makes TWO great lights. Exactly Two. The newly made Sun then becomes the NAMED light source on one side of earth.

The "made" does not necessarily mean to fashion ex nihilo, so He may have taken something that was there and made the sun and moon. But it is an interesting proposition that you have - that the universe was already in existence and "in the beginning" God created the earth, sun and solar system. I don't know that it helps completely, though, since there is an apparent age to the solar system as well.

Agreed. Creation Week's context is the Earth and it's solar system only.

But there is another argument for why we should consider the Genesis record to not be intended as a literal account. It's called the "framework" view. The idea is that there is a clear pattern ("framework") seen in the Genesis account and hence that the account may not have been intended as a strictly chronological record of creation.

The problem is that the "pattern" IS that it is a Chronology "And evening and morning where the Nth day" is a repeated pattern. Arguing that the pattern negates the chronology is like arguing "because God's Word keeps saying it is a chronological sequence we have proof that it is not" - and that is just too much of a stretch for me to swallow.

Furthermore with the Exodus 20:8-11 "hard wire" straight to the literal week of Sinai - there is no escaping this 7 day event. God summarizes Gen 1-2:3 and then shows that this is exactly the timeline sequence that Israel is to honor and follow.

Even the evolutionist Orthodox Rabbis agree that the language in the commandment does not allow for any other spin.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

Interesting. I still see such a pattern in how Genesis 1 is written so as to preclude us from assuming that it is strictly literal. I do not mean by this that it is highly allegorical in nature, but simply that the chronology may be suspect - intentionally.

FA

 

[BobRyan]

It is one thing to read a chronological sequence as in Gen 1-2:3 where each unit is given as "evening and morning - day-N" but then we when see "SIX days you SHALL...work and rest the seventh day ... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE... and Rested the Seventh day".. it is entirely impossible to turn it any other way.

The only way it is ever done is by first bringing another bias into the text and secondly by ignoring the "summary of Gen 1-2:3" that God Gives in Exodus 20:8-11.

I don't think you bring another bias to the text - but I do think you are looking at it "alone" without that hard-wired link to God's own Summary of the Gen 1-2:3 chronological sequence. Given that link - it is innescapable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Faith alone]

It is one thing to read a chronological sequence as in Gen 1-2:3 where each unit is given as "evening and morning - day-N" but then we when see "SIX days you SHALL...work and rest the seventh day ... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE... and Rested the Seventh day".. it is entirely impossible to turn it any other way.

The only way it is ever done is by first bringing another bias into the text and secondly by ignoring the "summary of Gen 1-2:3" that God Gives in Exodus 20:8-11.

I don't think you bring another bias to the text - but I do think you are looking at it "alone" without that hard-wired link to God's own Summary of the Gen 1-2:3 chronological sequence. Given that link - it is innescapable.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

I understood what you were saying there, and I agree that this supports 6 24-hr. days. But again the Lord could be stating the creation story in a manner as to keep it basic for us. If in doing so the actual creation took over 6 days, that would not keep a statement in Exodus of referring to the Sabbath as the 7th day based on the creation story from being valid.

The statement of what was done in Genesis 2 is in a different chronological order, and though there are explanations for that, it does open it up to a non-chronological format. The 4 gospels tell the same story from different perspectives. But the Spirit is trying to accomplish something in each of the gospels. They are all in different chronological order. It's not like one of them is "wrong." We don't need to have the same event happen more than once IOT preserve the accuracy of the 4 Gospels... Why could not the Spirit be doing something similar in Genesis 1?

Now, I am playing the devil's advocate here, since I hold to 6 24-hr. days. But I am trying to keep an open mind to other possibilities. Mark 10:6 is pretty strong evidence that those 6 days are 24-hr., normal days.

FA

 

[BobRyan]

I do not know the Hebrew. But the translators of the NET Bible are superb translators. Daniel Wallace is the editor of the NET Bible. Here's the text:god was here...

Genesis 1:14, 15Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth." And it was so.

In vs. 17 it says that, "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth" Now it does not say that God "made" those lights anywhere, but that He placed them in the expanse (sky). It is reasonable to take this as causing the lights to appear. I'm talking about the stars/galaxies here, as you were below; so I think we're on the same page here. Or, perhaps I should say that the NET is on the same page.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]



[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

ldGh rw)Mh eyldGh tr)Mh yen$ [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](8799)-t) eyhl) &(Yw [/FONT]​

. eybkwKh te)w hlyLh tl$mml a+Qh rw)Mh ewYh tl$mml​

[/FONT]
[/FONT]


The reference to stars seems to in parenthetical - but the number made on Day 4 seems to be listed explicitly -- 2.

If you click on the word "MADE" you get Strongs 6213

to do, fashion, accomplish, make

1. (Qal)
   1. to do, work, make, produce 1a

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Faith alone]

I do not know the Hebrew. But the translators of the NET Bible are superb translators. Daniel Wallace is the editor of the NET Bible. Here's the text:god was here...

Genesis 1:14, 15Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth." And it was so.

In vs. 17 it says that, "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide light on the earth" Now it does not say that God "made" those lights anywhere, but that He placed them in the expanse (sky). It is reasonable to take this as causing the lights to appear. I'm talking about the stars/galaxies here, as you were below; so I think we're on the same page here. Or, perhaps I should say that the NET is on the same page. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

ldGh rw)Mh eyldGh tr)Mh yen$ [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](8799)-t) eyhl) &(Yw [/FONT]​

. eybkwKh te)w hlyLh tl$mml a+Qh rw)Mh ewYh tl$mml​

[/FONT][/FONT]The reference to stars seems to in parenthetical - but the number made on Day 4 seems to be listed explicitly -- 2.

If you click on the word "MADE" you get Strongs 6213

to do, fashion, accomplish, make

1. (Qal)
   1. to do, work, make, produce 1a

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

One problem... "made" is not there. It's just, "...the stars." That's why it is not in blue and listed above. (I put it in red to make it clear.) It simply says, "God made two great lights. The greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. ...the stars also."

Now, is this saying that he made the two great lights... and the stars also? Or does it mean that he made the greater light to govern the day and the lsser light to govern the night, the stars (to govern the night) also?

FA

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

I understood what you were saying there, and I agree that this supports 6 24-hr. days. But again the Lord could be stating the creation story in a manner as to keep it basic for us. If in doing so the actual creation took over 6 days, that would not keep a statement in Exodus of referring to the Sabbath as the 7th day based on the creation story from being valid.

God's Word is our "source" text for what God did. You and I both agree that the text "says" God did it in seven actual days - places that in LAW and insists that the people DO likewise -- literally.

Your suggestion is that "maybe God said one thing - but DID another" even though His own Law highlights the "fact" of the literal 24 day sequence as the main "detail" to be "observed". You are saying "What if this is the VERY detail that is most untrue" about the Genesis account of Gen 1-2:3.

I think that line of reasoning argues "in spite of the text" that explicitly and deliberately links the literal 24 day "detail" of Gen 1-2:3 so hard that it wires it into LAW.

Given that there is no chronological sequence in Gen 2 and given that the Gen 1-2:3 sequence has it's "7 literal day" detail highlighted, repeated, and turned into LAW -- I see no way to dodge it.

Though I appreciate your objective approach to seeing just how much wiggle room there really is in the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

One problem... "made" is not there. It's just, "...the stars." That's why it is not in blue and listed above. (I put it in red to make it clear.) It simply says, "God made two great lights. The greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. ...the stars also."

Now, is this saying that he made the two great lights... and the stars also? Or does it mean that he made the greater light to govern the day and the lsser light to govern the night, the stars (to govern the night) also?

FA

It could be that he means that the stars also shine at night but since this is the description of God "making" things over a 7 day period of time - it seems reasonable to conclude that the text is arguing for God as creator of the stars. In John 1 we are told that "nothing has come into existence" apart from Christ making it.

However the fact that the number of things "made" on Day 4 is "two" and not "A zillion and two" leads me to conclude that the making of the stars had happened at some other time.

in Christ,

Bob