Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

A fundamental assumption of evolution is that nothing in nature required a cause outside of nature... that would be God.

One does not need to make ANY assumptions about evolution to see that Genesis 6-11 is NOT an historic account of an actual event. Indeed, all that one needs to see that Genesis 6-11 is NOT an historic account of an actual event is a 6th grade education in math and science, and that without ANY assumptions or knowledge about ANY theory of evolution. Penguins can’t fly and kangaroos can’t swim. Whether or not penguins and kangaroos evolved or were created is irrelevant to the absurd and ridiculous notion that Genesis 6-11 is an historic account of an actual event.

 

[BobRyan]

2Pet 3
3Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,

4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

6through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

The mockers that come claim uniformity throughout all time.

They deny both the creation of the world by THE WORD, creaiton OUT OF WATER AND the FLOOD that destroyed THE WORLD.

Matt 24
37"For the (AV)coming of the Son of Man will be (AW)just like the days of Noah.

38"For as [n]in those days before the flood[/b] they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Yet the mockers in every age will scoff at those who choose to believe God's Word --

Is it any wonder!!??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Craigbythesea]

BobRyan wrote,

Yet the mockers in every age will scoff at those who choose to believe God's Word

What is this that you are talking about? No one is mocking God or the Bible. If anything at all is being mocked, it is willful ignorance and absurdly ridiculous interpretations of the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Did I "forget" to quote the clear texts above without ADDING interpretation in the non-text way you have posted?

I think that I quoted THE TEXT -- your objection is to THE TEXT ALONE!!

That fact is apparent, blatant, glaringly obvious and "instructive". How then can you obfuscate it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

They deny both the creation of the world by THE WORD, creaiton OUT OF WATER AND the FLOOD that destroyed THE WORLD.

This right here illustrates why I ealier said the laws of the universe must have been different if Genesis were literal.
The question was over the Flood, and among other things, where all the water came from and went. But when you look at Creation too, it is easy to see where the water came from. The very first vese portray a univers made out of water. Gos placed a "formament" in this water, which became "the heavens", or atmosphere. "it divided the waters, meaning there was still water ABOVE as well as below it. Then, the dry land was made to appear in the midst of it. So naturally, there was more than enough water above the heavens, and below the dry land to flood the world. And it is obviously not simply "the water in the air as vapor", or just "the water frozen in the pole ice caps". There was a whole universe of water that disappeared. If we try to say 5that this whole Creation was a "suspension of natural law", then that is basically the same thing. What we know as "natural law" did not begion until later.
If we want to argue for literalism, then we have to take a hard look and face these facts, and not simply gloss over them, and try to force the evidence in the current stater of the universe into this mold, and then try to pass it off as "science".
Once again, my argument is that this was possible, according to a theory (accepted by many secular scientists) that the laws of nature can change, from what we call "the standard model" when the right conditions are present. It is called "tunneling", and represents the decay from a higher energy state to a lower one (like the corners of stretched out sheets popping off, and curling up). This would match the Fall (and its aftermath) excellently.

 

[El_Guero]

This is crazy.

You expect Moses to define HIS WORDS IN YOUR DIALECT.

God spoke through Moses at a point in time.

Since that point in time, ONLY ONE THEORY of CREATION has challenged THE GENESIS. Moses wrote over 3,000 years ago, and his understanding of modern Science was ZERO. Yet, he wrote the first THEORY of Creation that matches what is recorded in the geology of the planet.

You argue about timelines and semantics of his words, but you cannot argue that his theory was not DIVINELY revealed.

TIMELINE: Since Darwin a major point in evolutionary theory has come and gone every 10 to 20 years. In over 3,000 years, the only thing that can be argued about in the GENESIS, is the meaning that God intended to give the wording.

 

[El_Guero]

Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science?

YES

 

[El_Guero]

To teach otherwise is not honest with the historical evidence that ONLY GENESIS has stood the test of time.

Today EACH supporting point of evolution is broken out to protect the overall premise: "Man can define the origins better than any god."

God defined the origins in Genesis.

 

[Craigbythesea]

El_Guero wrote,

To teach otherwise is not honest with the historical evidence that ONLY GENESIS has stood the test of time.

Very many things have stood the test of time, including Genesis. The interpretation of Genesis put forth by many fundamentalists, however, has been proven to be absolutely ludicrous.

Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science? Of course not! Genesis, regardless of one’s interpretation, is religious literature and NOT scientific literature.

God had blessed us with the Bible for religious purposes; and God has blessed us with science for very many purposes—including a greater understanding of the glory and majesty of our God.

I enjoy picking up a rock in my garden knowing that God made that rock hundreds of millions of years ago, and that I can hold that very ancient creation of God in my hand and look at with the eyes that he blessed me with. And what a sensation it is to dig up a rock in my garden that has been right there for hundreds of millions of years and pick it up and carry it to another part of my garden and use that very rock to border a garden path that I am installing today.

And when my toil in my garden is over for another day, I enjoy sitting on my front porch and gazing into the sky and looking at his almost timeless creation. Just the fact that the universe that I live in was created by God Himself billions upon billions of years ago blesses me beyond description—but to actually behold that universe with my eyes while sitting in a chair on my front porch . . . WOW!

 

[BobRyan]

They deny both the creation of the world by THE WORD, creaiton OUT OF WATER AND the FLOOD that destroyed THE WORLD.

Originally posted by Eric B:

This right here illustrates why I ealier said the laws of the universe must have been different if Genesis were literal.

well if you are thinking that Genesis says "The World NATURALLY FORMED ITSELF and life NATURALLY self-ogranized on a dead planet in 7 days" then you simply have no understanding of the text.

If on the OTHER hand you "think" that the "law of of the universe" Prohibits the Creator from taking action -- you have a "god" in science that is more imagination and myth than fact.

The question was over the Flood, and among other things, where all the water came from and went.

The science of ancient catstrophic events ordered by God is "guesswork" at best NOT a lab experiment "disproving scripture".

Scientists can be directed by scripture in their guesswork as they look for answers -- or they can start with a naturalist/humanist bias and "be surprised" each time "God is right".

I guess it depends on where you are most comfortable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Craigbythesea]

Bob Ryan wrote,

well if you are thinking that Genesis says "The World NATURALLY FORMED ITSELF and life NATURALLY self-ogranized on a dead planet in 7 days" then you simply have no understanding of the text.

If on the OTHER hand you "think" that the "law of of the universe" Prohibits the Creator from taking action -- you have a "god" in science that is more imagination and myth than fact.

Bob,

It might be a good idea to read the posts before you reply to them.

 

[BobRyan]

The point "remains".

When God raised Jesus from the Dead - caused the virgin birth, raised others from the dead ... these were all PHYSICAL FACTS verifiable by the eyewitnesses WITHOUT HAVING to rewrite science!!

It has never been true - in all of Bible history that When God acts DIRECTLY - we have to "rewrite science to believe Him" IF it is an action taken IN the PHYSICAL realm!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

You're still missing what I am saying.
The universe consisting of water, divided by a "firmament", and with land made to "appear" in the midst of it, is not a "catastrpohic event, or God's "direct action". That's the way it WAS, and yes, God added the firmament and made the dry land appear, but what everyone has missed is the fact that both the firmament and land were placed WITHIN a vast body of water, not water existing ON land, and UNDER an atmosphere, with only "empty space" beyond the atmosphere.
And this is the way it was FIRST, before it became the way we are familiar with today, so if God was continuously "suspending the laws of nature just like the virgin birth and resurrection)" for things to exist that way, then you might was well say He did rewrite the laws, or at least wrote them new, because it was not like our world today in the first few verses.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
You're still missing what I am saying.
The universe consisting of water, divided by a "firmament", and with land made to "appear" in the midst of it, is not a "catastrpohic event, or God's "direct action".

The Bible does not say "the universe consisted of water".

But if we take what the Bible DOES say in Genesis 1 we see that it says "AND GOD SAID LET THERE BE..." followed by "AND THERE was evening and morning the X-th day". A literal timeline sequence with GOD DIRECTED ACTION stated explicitly IN the text.

Just as we see in the Genesis 6 text.

How can you read the text and then deny even WHAT IT says - let alone how IT applies to science?

That's the way it WAS, and yes, God added the firmament and made the dry land appear, but what everyone has missed is the fact that both the firmament and land were placed WITHIN a vast body of water, not water existing ON land, and UNDER an atmosphere, with only "empty space" beyond the atmosphere.
And this is the way it was FIRST, before it became the way we are familiar with today

But you extrapolate what the text DOES so -- into what it DOES NOT say.

The text said "LET THERE BE" and it says
"GOD MADE TWO great lights" etc. But it does not say HE MADE the water or MADE the land. Which implies that He did not MAKE Them DURING those 7 days. Perhaps before that.

Further it does show that the ATMOSPHERE was inserted into the MIDST of the waters with the DRY LAND appearing out of the WATERs that are beneath the expanse.

So we certainly have room to consider that the starting point for the 7 days is the earth "formless and void" but already existing.

Just as the earth is later described as "formless and void" during the millennium.

, so if God was continuously "suspending the laws of nature just like the virgin birth and resurrection)" for things to exist that way, then you might was well say He did rewrite the laws

I am not arguing that He "continuously suspends HIS OWN laws of nature" in creation more than in the virgin birth and I do not argue that the laws of genetics do not apply since we haved the virgin birth or that Gravity does not apply since we have 7 days of creation week.

And as for "HOW" one creates a living planet and "Did God do it the way it is normally done"?? That is a fictional scenario.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

But you don't believe in the gap theory, right? I thought you believed that there was nothing created before the 7 days.
Anyway, it still follows that whenever He made the water, the "firmament" divided this water, into upper and lower, rather than the water forming under the firmament (with some evaporating and rising into the firmament); and sitting in "basins" on a solid surface.