• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Does It Matter

Shortandy

New Member
For years I have listened to fellow pastors discuss and debate the topic of creation. Every believer I have met seems to play for one of two teams; 6, 24 hour days Creation or Theistic Evolution. In my observation most, for the sake of unity or because they just don't want to debate, have said that it doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are one because it doesn't really effect anything.

In a recent sermon series I have been preaching through the miracles of Jesus from John. For a guy like me (Literal 6 Day Creationist) these make sense.... that Jesus would open His mouth and speak and things would immediately happen. But what about those who are on the other team? How does this fit into your theological system? If you have no problem believing that Christ could speak and things immediately happen (water to wine; paralyzed man at Bethesda, Roman officials son, feeding of 5000, raising of Lazarus, etc) then why is it difficult to think that Jesus would open His mouth and create the world?

Not trying to pick a fight and I am certainly not trying to open up a debate that has happened a lot of times on this forum. I simply want to hear from the other side.

Thanks!
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am, like you, not trying to pick a fight.

I believe God could have created the universe anyway he wanted to, with a snap of the finger, with a spoken word, or any given period of time from a second to seven days to millions of years. God is outside of time and thus time has no meaning to God.
I do not believe God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days. He could have. But I do not believe he did. I do believe he created over, what to us, is a long period of time. To me that is what the scientific evidence shows ... and God did create science, some of which we have discovered. To me science and the Bible do not conflict. The Bible should not be used for science and science should not be used for spiritual explanations. That is to say, the Bible tells us why God created while science gives us evidence of how God create. The explanations in Genesis, and there are two creations stories, are good explanations for a pre-scientific population. If God had given a full scientific explanation no one would have understood and thus no one would have considered the explanation plausible. It would have been considered nonsense and discarded … IMHO

I have no problem believing that Christ spoke and things happened immediately. For healing it would not make sense to me that he spoke and the healing took place at some later day, say three years later.

I do believe that Genesis speaks the truth in the first five words, "In the beginning God created". That I believe firmly, that God did it. That God did it is important. How he did it is not particularly important to me.
 

Havensdad

New Member
#1 Yes, it matters very much. Long ages undermine the theology of the Bible. How do you explain the cataclysmic flood described by scripture? Death before sin?

#2 As someone who has studied the science, there is no scientific fact, which demands an old earth. Only evolutionary, atheistic cosmology demands long ages. Too many Christians have bought the presuppositions of the atheists, right along with their old age theories, in attempt to sound "relevant" and "scientific."

#3 The scriptures don't support long ages. Every day in Genesis 1 is emphasized, via Hebrew parallelism; it is normal, 24 hour days (at least on the earth: there are some scientific principles relating to the theory of relativity, which would allow for an old universe, with a young earth; A Euclidean zone where the clocks on the earth would be moving at a vastly slower rate than that of the rest of the universe. This, however, is theoretical.)

#4 I believe this is an important battleground; not something to be pushed to the sidelines. When did Paul say "Oh well, believe what you want. Let's just get along." That sentiment is not biblical, especially on a foundational issue such as this.

I feel very strongly about this issue. Let's not compromise God's word people. Use discernment!! http://www.icr.org/article/5300/
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
#1 Yes, it matters very much. Long ages undermine the theology of the Bible. How do you explain the cataclysmic flood described by scripture? Death before sin?

#2 As someone who has studied the science, there is no scientific fact, which demands an old earth. Only evolutionary, atheistic cosmology demands long ages. Too many Christians have bought the presuppositions of the atheists, right along with their old age theories, in attempt to sound "relevant" and "scientific."

#3 The scriptures don't support long ages. Every day in Genesis 1 is emphasized, via Hebrew parallelism; it is normal, 24 hour days (at least on the earth: there are some scientific principles relating to the theory of relativity, which would allow for an old universe, with a young earth; A Euclidean zone where the clocks on the earth would be moving at a vastly slower rate than that of the rest of the universe. This, however, is theoretical.)

#4 I believe this is an important battleground; not something to be pushed to the sidelines. When did Paul say "Oh well, believe what you want. Let's just get along." That sentiment is not biblical, especially on a foundational issue such as this.

I feel very strongly about this issue. Let's not compromise God's word people. Use discernment!! http://www.icr.org/article/5300/

Good answer. It is important.

:thumbs:
 

Shortandy

New Member
I am, like you, not trying to pick a fight.

I believe God could have created the universe anyway he wanted to, with a snap of the finger, with a spoken word, or any given period of time from a second to seven days to millions of years. God is outside of time and thus time has no meaning to God.
I do not believe God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days. He could have. But I do not believe he did. I do believe he created over, what to us, is a long period of time. To me that is what the scientific evidence shows ... and God did create science, some of which we have discovered. To me science and the Bible do not conflict. The Bible should not be used for science and science should not be used for spiritual explanations. That is to say, the Bible tells us why God created while science gives us evidence of how God create. The explanations in Genesis, and there are two creations stories, are good explanations for a pre-scientific population. If God had given a full scientific explanation no one would have understood and thus no one would have considered the explanation plausible. It would have been considered nonsense and discarded … IMHO

I have no problem believing that Christ spoke and things happened immediately. For healing it would not make sense to me that he spoke and the healing took place at some later day, say three years later.

I do believe that Genesis speaks the truth in the first five words, "In the beginning God created". That I believe firmly, that God did it. That God did it is important. How he did it is not particularly important to me.

Your response is saturated with grace and kindness so please don't be offended at my response. Doesn't the miracles that Christ performed at His spoken word make much more sense if a literal 6 day creation were true?
 

Havensdad

New Member
I, personally, agree with Pink:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_01.htm

.....that there was a 'gap', and the account given in Genesis is actually one of restoration, and it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or science; and ESPECIALLY not atheism.

There is no biblical support for this. The gap theory was indeed created expressly to account for old earth secular "science."

Tell me, why do you not believe the earth was made in 6 literal days, less that 20k years ago? Explain please.
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Does it matter??

Well, guess it depends on whether you want to trust whether God spoke in "riddles" (for lack of a better term) about the flood, origin of sin, salvation, virgin birth, etc, etc, ad infinitum!

Personally, if I did not believe God meant exactly what He said to start the BOOK, then what makes His words "TRUE" for the remainder of the BOOK???

Why should I believe Him when He said "I am come that you might have life more abundantly" (Jn 10:10b) or "I will keep you in perfect peace if you trust in me" (Is 26:3a) ---paraphrased!!

If God had given some reason to take the creation time-table other than literal, then fine! But there is nothing to indicate any thing other than a straightforward relating of the event(s) and the time of execution.

Again, if the simple phraseology as used by Him to start His book is not legitimate, why should we accept any of the rest as anything other than "symbolism"; again for lack of a better term?????
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is no biblical support for this. The gap theory was indeed created expressly to account for old earth secular "science."

HD, you evidently didn't take the time to read through the first 4-5 paragraphs of the link I provided. This 'gap' theory has zilch to do with 'secular "science" '. If you know anything about Pink you'd know he would be the last to question God's word.

Tell me, why do you not believe the earth was made in 6 literal days, less that 20k years ago? Explain please.

Because, as I said, I agree with Pink that it's actually an account of restoration; and once again, it has zilch to do with science or evolution, and in no way minimizes the authority of God's word or diminishes His power. It has to do with the translation of the word 'was' in the 2nd verse from the Hebrew.

And, I agree totally with the marvelous type that Pink sees in this 'restoration'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your response is saturated with grace and kindness so please don't be offended at my response. Doesn't the miracles that Christ performed at His spoken word make much more sense if a literal 6 day creation were true?

Thanks for your kind words. I am very slow to take offense. Anger, offense, bitterness are negatives and for the most part accomplish nothing. I do like a calm, rational discussion.

No, to me I see Christ's words as addressing issues that needed an immediate answer. Whereas I see creation as an ongoing process that continues to this day. I believe we can see this creation taking place on earth and in the universe with the birth and death of stars. I believe God is still in the business of creation. This, of course, brings up the question of what is meant "and on the 7th day he [God] rested". I do not believe I can fully describe what this mean and does not mean. I do not believe that God simply stopped doing anything ... like sitting in a rocking chair and and watching the universe nor do I believe he that God wound the universe up like a clock or machine and then sat back and is watching it run. This might be an interesting question to discuss in another thread.

As I said in my earlier post I believe the Genesis accounts were explanations for a pre-scientific age. This is not to belittle those who lived at that time. I believe they knew many things we do not, things we could benefit from knowing. I wish could give you an example.




 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Page 1

This post can be found on this page:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61687&page=6

Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

For those of you who enjoy types and similes from scripture, I highly recommend 'Gleanings In Genesis', by Arthur W. Pink, not only on the 'gap theory', but for many other fascinating, edifying types to be found in Genesis. Pink is a master of analogy from scripture.

Since reading Pink on it, I've come to agreement on his view, and that is that there was indeed a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 (and it's definitely not from a Darwinian standpoint) . This 'gap' fits nicely into the implied analogy of 2 Cor 4:6, as will be seen (The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed).

Some excerpts from Chapter One, 'Creation and Restoration', 'Gleanings In Genesis', by Arthur Pink:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_01.htm

“.....It is now over a hundred years ago since Dr. Chalmers called attention to the fact that the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should be translated "became," and that between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some terrible catastrophe must have intervened. That this catastrophe may have been connected with the apostasy of Satan, seems more than likely....

What is found in the remainder of Genesis 1 refers not to the primitive creation but to the restoration of that which had fallen into ruins...........

......We have little patience with those who labor to show that the teaching of this chapter is in harmony with modern science.......

Turning from the literal meaning of what is before us in this opening chapter of Holy Writ, we would dwell now upon that which has often been pointed out by others, namely, the typical significance of these verses.........

1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." As we have already observed, the original condition of this primary creation was vastly different from the state in which we view it in the next verse.........

So, too, in the beginning of this world’s history, God also created man, and vastly different was his original state from that into which he subsequently fell.........

2. "And the earth became without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Some fearful catastrophe must have occurred. Sin had dared to raise its horrid head against God, and with sin came death and all its attendant evils. The fair handiwork of the Creator was blasted.........

No less tragic was that which befell the first man. Like the original earth before him, Adam remained not in his primitive state. A dreadful catastrophe occurred. Description of this is given in Genesis 3. By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin.........

3. "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Here is where hope begins to dawn. God did not abandon the primitive earth, which had become a ruin. It would not have been surprising, though, if He had. Why should God trouble any further about that which lay under His righteous judgment? Why should He condescend to notice that which was now a desolate waste? Why, indeed. But here was where sovereign mercy intervened. He had gracious designs toward that formless void. He purposed to resurrect it, restore it, refructify it......

The analogy holds good in the spiritual realm. Fallen man had no more claim upon God’s notice than had the desolated primitive earth. When Adam rebelled against his Maker, he merited naught but unsparing judgment at His hands, and if God was inclined to have any further regard for him, it was due alone to sovereign mercy. What wonder if God had left man to the doom he so richly deserved! But no. God had designs of grace toward him. From the wreck and ruin of fallen humanity, God purposed to bring forth a "new creation." Out of the death of sin, God is now bringing on to resurrection ground all who are united to Christ His Son. And the first thing in bringing this about is the activity of the Holy Spirit. And this, again, is a prime necessity. Fallen man, in himself, is as helpless as was the fallen earth. The sinner can no more regenerate himself than could the ruined earth lift itself out of the deep which rested upon it. The new creation, like the restoration of the material creation, must be accomplished by God Himself [emphasis mine].
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Page 2.................

4. "And God said, let there be light, and there was light." First the activity of the Holy Spirit and now the spoken Word. No less than ten times in this chapter do we read "and God said." God might have refashioned and refurnished the earth without speaking at all, but He did not. Instead, He plainly intimated from the beginning, that His purpose was to be worked out and His counsels accomplished by the Word. The first thing God said was, "Let there be light," and we read, "There was light." Light, then, came in, was produced by, the Word. And then we are told, "God saw the light, that it was good."

It is so in the work of the new creation. These two are inseparably joined together—the activity of the Spirit and the ministry of the Word of God. It is by these the man in Christ became a new creation. And the initial step toward this was the entrance of light into the darkness. The entrance of sin has blinded the eyes of man’s heart and has darkened his understanding. So much so that, left to himself, man is unable to perceive the awfulness of his condition, the condemnation which rests upon him, or the peril in which he stands. Unable to see his urgent need of a Savior, he is, spiritually, in total darkness. And neither the affections of his heart, the reasonings of his mind, nor the power of his will, can dissipate this awful darkness. Light comes to the sinner through the Word applied by the Spirit. As it is written, "the entrance of Thy words giveth light" (Ps. 119:130). This marks the initial step of God’s work in the soul. Just as the shining of the light in Genesis I made manifest the desolation upon which it shone, so the entrance of God’s Word into the human heart reveals the awful ruin which sin has wrought.

5. "And God divided the light from the darkness." Hebrews 4:12 tells us, the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." This is not a figurative expression but, we believe, a statement of literal fact. Man is a tripartite being, made up of "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess. 5:23). The late Dr. Pierson distinguished between them thus: "The spirit is capable of God-consciousness; the soul is the seat of self-consciousness; the body of sense-consciousness.’’ In the day that Adam sinned, he died spiritually. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body; spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. When Adam died, his spirit was not annihilated, but it was "alienated" from God. There was a fall. The spirit, the highest part of Adam’s complex being, no longer dominated; instead, it was degraded, it fell to the level of the soul, and ceased to function separately. Hence, today, the unregenerate man is dominated by his soul, which is the seat of lust, passion, emotion. But in the work of regeneration, the Word of God "pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit," and the spirit is rescued from the lower level to which it has fallen, being brought back again into communion with God. The "spirit" being that part of man which is capable of communion with God, is light; the "soul" when it is not dominated and regulated by the spirit is in darkness, hence, in that part of the six days’ work of restoration which adumbrated the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, we read, "And God divided the light from the darkness."

6. "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters . . . . and God called the firmament heaven" (Gen. 1:6, 8). This brings us to the second days work, and here, for the first time, we read that "God made" something (Gen. 1:7). This was the formation of the atmospheric heaven, the "firmament," named by God "heaven." That which corresponds to this in the new creation, is the impartation of a new nature. The one who is "born of the Spirit" becomes a "partaker of the Divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). Regeneration is not the improvement of the flesh, or the cultivation of the old nature; it is the reception of an altogether new and heavenly nature. It is important to note that the "firmament" was produced by the Word, for, again we read, "And God said." So it is by the written Word of God that the new birth is produced, "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth"(Jam. 1:18). And again, "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23).

7. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself" (Gen. 1:9-11). These verses bring before us God’s work on the third day, and in harmony with the meaning of this numeral we find that which clearly speaks of resurrection. The earth was raised out of the waters which had submerged it, and then it was clothed with vegetation. Where before there was only desolation and death, life and fertility now appeared. So it is in regeneration. The one who was dead in trespasses and sins, has been raised to walk in newness of life. The one who was by the old creation "in Adam," is now by new creation "in Christ." The one who before produced nothing but dead works, is now fitted to bring forth fruit to the glory of God.
 

Havensdad

New Member
HD, you evidently didn't take the time to read through the first 4-5 paragraphs of the link I provided. This 'gap' theory has zilch to do with 'secular "science" '. If you know anything about Pink you'd know he would be the last to question God's word.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Pink cites Chalmers. Chalmers cites secular geologists.

I have read Pink. I like some of Pink's works. I can say the same of Wayne Grudem. But on the issue of Creationism, they are both wrong. At least Grudem is intellectually honest enough to admit that the Young Earth Creationists are the most biblically consistent (while disagreeing with them!?).


Because, as I said, I agree with Pink that it's actually an account of restoration; and once again, it has zilch to do with science or evolution, and in no way minimizes the authority of God's word or diminishes His power. It has to do with the translation of the word 'was' in the 2nd verse from the Hebrew.

And, I agree totally with the marvelous type that Pink sees in this 'restoration'.

First, it undermines the gospel, the flood account, and God's own words.

Second, as nearly any Hebrew scholar will tell you (except, of course, those who are trying to prove the gap theory), the word "was" in Genesis (hâyâh), means "was," not "became." In order for the word to mean "became" it needs a preposition...which it does not have in this instance. "Became" is not even a possible translation for this word (without the preposition), much less the correct one.

The entire reason Pink considered the theory in the first place, was Chalmers. And Chalmers sought out the theory, because of secular, atheistic science. This is undeniable. (And is admitted by some of the more honest of the Gap theory proponents).
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
..First, it undermines the gospel

How?

the flood account,

How?

and God's own words.

How?

Second, as nearly any Hebrew scholar will tell you (except, of course, those who are trying to prove the gap theory), the word "was" in Genesis (hâyâh), means "was," not "became." In order for the word to mean "became" it needs a preposition...which it does not have in this instance. "Became" is not even a possible translation for this word (without the preposition), much less the correct one.

HD, I'm no scholar and I've respect for your skills. So, are you saying that there's absolutely no way under heaven, no doubt whatsoever, that the word 'was' could be rendered 'became'?
 

saturneptune

New Member
#1 Yes, it matters very much. Long ages undermine the theology of the Bible. How do you explain the cataclysmic flood described by scripture? Death before sin?

#2 As someone who has studied the science, there is no scientific fact, which demands an old earth. Only evolutionary, atheistic cosmology demands long ages. Too many Christians have bought the presuppositions of the atheists, right along with their old age theories, in attempt to sound "relevant" and "scientific."

#3 The scriptures don't support long ages. Every day in Genesis 1 is emphasized, via Hebrew parallelism; it is normal, 24 hour days (at least on the earth: there are some scientific principles relating to the theory of relativity, which would allow for an old universe, with a young earth; A Euclidean zone where the clocks on the earth would be moving at a vastly slower rate than that of the rest of the universe. This, however, is theoretical.)

#4 I believe this is an important battleground; not something to be pushed to the sidelines. When did Paul say "Oh well, believe what you want. Let's just get along." That sentiment is not biblical, especially on a foundational issue such as this.

I feel very strongly about this issue. Let's not compromise God's word people. Use discernment!! http://www.icr.org/article/5300/
I agree with your post on this subject. However, if you used the same standard to only one view of end time events, I would strongly disagree, as Scripture is not nearly as clear.
 

Winman

Active Member
I am a six day young earth creationist, and it matters to me. The problem in my opinion of understanding these six days as being ages, is that it makes you question every miracle in the scriptures.

I once heard the story that a scholar claimed that the Red Sea was really the "Reed Sea" and only ankle deep, and so it was no miracle at all for Moses and the Jews to cross safely, to which a preacher proclaimed, "Glory be! The Lord drowned Pharaoh and all his army in ankle deep water!"

I like that story. :tongue3:

But that is the problem, if the six day creation account is not literal, then what other passages in scripture are not literal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

donnA

Active Member
it does matter, it matters whether or not we believe God. if we do not beleive what God wrote in scripture then we do not beleive God, we call Him a liar.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...why do you not believe the earth was made in 6 literal days, less that 20k years ago? Explain please.

My apologies, I don't think I answered your question correctly. I defer to Pink:

"......Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation; Genesis 1:2 describes the then condition of the earth six days before Adam was called into existence.......In "six days," that is, literal days of twenty-four hours duration, the Lord completed the work of restoring and re-fashioning that which some terrible catastrophe had blasted and plunged into chaos.' - Pink
 

Shortandy

New Member
Thanks for your kind words. I am very slow to take offense. Anger, offense, bitterness are negatives and for the most part accomplish nothing. I do like a calm, rational discussion.

No, to me I see Christ's words as addressing issues that needed an immediate answer. Whereas I see creation as an ongoing process that continues to this day. I believe we can see this creation taking place on earth and in the universe with the birth and death of stars. I believe God is still in the business of creation. This, of course, brings up the question of what is meant "and on the 7th day he [God] rested". I do not believe I can fully describe what this mean and does not mean. I do not believe that God simply stopped doing anything ... like sitting in a rocking chair and and watching the universe nor do I believe he that God wound the universe up like a clock or machine and then sat back and is watching it run. This might be an interesting question to discuss in another thread.

As I said in my earlier post I believe the Genesis accounts were explanations for a pre-scientific age. This is not to belittle those who lived at that time. I believe they knew many things we do not, things we could benefit from knowing. I wish could give you an example.






Still the problem I am having with your view is that I don't believe it is consistent with all of scripture. There seems to be a great emphasis in scripture on the spoken word of God. For example, as to the universe and creation, Hebrews 1:3. We see here that things are being sustained by his word.

With that being said, I must ask you and others who hold your view....what is the motive? A plain reading of the text leans way further on my side than yours. So what motivates you to stand on the other side of the fence?
 

Havensdad

New Member
My apologies, I don't think I answered your question correctly. I defer to Pink:

"......Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation; Genesis 1:2 describes the then condition of the earth six days before Adam was called into existence.......In "six days," that is, literal days of twenty-four hours duration, the Lord completed the work of restoring and re-fashioning that which some terrible catastrophe had blasted and plunged into chaos.' - Pink

O.K. Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old? There is certainly no scientific evidence for it. Why does the Bible speak of dinosaur-like creatures, if these were from some Pre-Adamic earth? If the flood was as described in the Bible, then it was a worldwide, cataclysmic affair, that would have uprooted all of the fossils, and sedimentary layers. Do you deny the catastrophic flood?

Why is this "gap" not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? Why is the pre-Adamic earth not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures? Why does Jesus say that Adam was "at the beginning" and "the first man"?

If Satan fell before the garden of Eden, why did God wait until after he brought down the human race to curse him? How could Satan, who had already fallen, be a part of a garden and a world which was declared "Very Good" by a Holy and Righteous God (whose standards are moral perfection)?

I will try to get back to your earlier questions later today.
 
Top