genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No, you would have to say that, as you believe day six was not at the beginning. Think about it. If you weren't trying to squeeze millions of years into the Bible, you'd look at the 7 days as the beginning, just as Jesus did. And indeed they were the beginning, man made on day 6. That was the beginning period in which God created the heavens the earth the sea and all that is in them (Exodus 20:11) God resting on the 7th day. But that week was at the beginning if you read the Bible in a plane straightforward manner.

But that doesn't work with modern philosophies of origins, so you have to make up things like the day-age theory and somehow say the 7th day isn't really a day, it's the present age, etc. And, you believe man was made millions, even billions of years after the heavens and earth were created.

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

Never said God created on the 7th day. You made that up. But the seven days comprise the beginning according to Genesis. These days were at the beginning and they have formed the work week.

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

You, OTOH, reject the plane reading of Scripture, which is why it's so hard for you believe that man has existed from the very beginning of creation. So you change the meaning of what Jesus said and make it fit. It's simply a rejection of Christ's words.

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

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

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Actually there are 2 types of fears going on here, in a sense. I fear God and revere his word. You revere man's word, first and foremost, and attempt to reconcile God's word to man's word. I have no fear of man's word. Sometimes man is right, often he's wrong. Man has had several philosophies of origins throughout his 6 or so thousand years of history. And the Church has often tried to reconcile Scripture to those various theories. We saw this in Galileo's day, when Galileo (a young earth creationist, BTW) went against the secular geocentric science of his day. Same thing today with deep time and evolution.

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

 

[Aaron]

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

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

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

 

[Aaron]

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

Actually, the Scriptures are geocentric.

 

[loDebar]

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

 

[Calminian]

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

Even John Sailhamer disagrees. From Genesis unbound, page 36.

Human life did not originate until the sixth day of the week recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:4a. That means that human beings were not created "in the beginning" with the rest of God's creation. Human beings were "latecomers" according to the biblical account. They came only after the indefinite period of time denoted by the term "beginning."​

It is very clear to most old earthers, that yes, they have to admit humans were not created at the beginning.

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

It's only different in your mind. I was not different in Moses' mind, according to Ex. 20:11.

 

[Calminian]

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

LOL! Genesis 1:1 contains the words created, heavens and earth, and Genesis 2:1 contains the same words and the word finished.

So I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, the Scriptures are geocentric.

In your own mind only, especially today.

 

[Calminian]

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

Because he went against the arostitslian philosophers who were the secular astronomers of his day. Many in the Church had no problem with his thesis, but many others in the Church, particularly a certain Pope, were aligned with the aristotelian philosophers and read their cosmology into the Scriptures.

 

[loDebar]

LOL! Genesis 1:1 contains the words created, heavens and earth, and Genesis 2:1 contains the same words and the word finished.

So I have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL! Genesis 1:1 contains the words created, heavens and earth, and Genesis 2:1 contains the same words and the word finished.

So I have no idea what you're talking about.

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

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

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

 

[Aaron]

In your own mind only, especially today.

Really.

Show me something heliocentric.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Because he went against the arostitslian philosophers who were the secular astronomers of his day. Many in the Church had no problem with his thesis, but many others in the Church, particularly a certain Pope, were aligned with the aristotelian philosophers and read their cosmology into the Scriptures.

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

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

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

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Even John Sailhamer disagrees. From Genesis unbound, page 36.

Human life did not originate until the sixth day of the week recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:4a. That means that human beings were not created "in the beginning" with the rest of God's creation. Human beings were "latecomers" according to the biblical account. They came only after the indefinite period of time denoted by the term "beginning."​

It is very clear to most old earthers, that yes, they have to admit humans were not created at the beginning.

It's only different in your mind. I was not different in Moses' mind, according to Ex. 20:11.

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

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

 

[Aaron]

Really.

Show me something heliocentric.

In the Bible, that is.

 

[loDebar]

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

None of this makes any sense. Christ said Adam and Eve are from the beginning of creation. That is an issue you're going to have to deal with as you try to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I don't have the burden. I'm trust the Bible first. You can try to explain this away until you're blue in the face. Christ said explicitly, that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning, not billions of years after the beginning.

 

[loDebar]

None of this makes any sense. Christ said Adam and Eve are from the beginning of creation. That is an issue you're going to have to deal with as you try to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I don't have the burden. I'm trust the Bible first. You can try to explain this away until you're blue in the face. Christ said explicitly, that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning, not billions of years after the beginning.

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

 

[Calminian]

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

If you view the origins account literally, the entire 6 days is the beginning. Beginning can be understood as a beginning period. It's used in this respect all throughout the Old Testament. And it's very clear this is what the author intended in the origins account.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Gen. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”….
Gen. 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament….
Gen. 1:9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens…let the dry land appear”….
Gen. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass….”
Gen. 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament….
Gen. 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,….let birds fly above….
Gen. 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature….
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image….
Gen. 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good….

Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.​

Creation exists today. This, above, is the beginning of creation. This is what Christ was referring to, and he should know. He was the Creator.

You have a very simple decision. Believe the Creator or believe the world.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

None of this makes any sense. Christ said Adam and Eve are from the beginning of creation. That is an issue you're going to have to deal with as you try to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I don't have the burden. I'm trust the Bible first. You can try to explain this away until you're blue in the face. Christ said explicitly, that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning, not billions of years after the beginning.

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

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

 

[loDebar]

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

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

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

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