Ok, np - not that important since I don't have an issue - I just know it isn't chronologically accurate, hense, it convey's spiritual truth in it's written form, not a science manual.
-
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!
If God created a 12 billion year old universe 6000 years ago
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
Ok, np - not that important since I don't have an issue - I just know it isn't chronologically accurate, hense, it convey's spiritual truth in it's written form, not a science manual.
Ah, I missed the doubt and sarcasm there, sorry. Let me seriously laugh out loud at this. The Bible is supposed to be literal in most cases right, specifically Genesis. The text is crystal clear, black and white, and when it doesn't make sense chronologically, I now need to go out and buy a BOOK to understand the 'POSITION' on this?! That is ridiculous.
People looking at a typical Evangelical Christian book store surely wonder to themselves as they literally marvel at all the books there, that any Christian could actually read the Bible, and figure out how to do what it says without a libarary to tell them how to believe it, recieve it, name it, claim it, and live it.
I never implied buying a book is the answer. My point is there are other views besides the "if it doesnt pass my finite understanding and science it is not literal" one.
Do you hold to the literal virgin birth? Resurrection? Feeding thousands with a handful of food? Walking on water? how does that all fit into your not scientifically possible, hence it must not be literal reasoning?
None of those accounts you just mentioned in the Bible that I am aware of have chronological inconsistencies in them, so they are not a concern from that standpoint. Of course I believe those. I also believe Genesis to be true - just not young earth literal.
As is so common on these boards when I read them is the very tiring pattern of changing subjects and never dealing with the first thing that has been brought up.
I did look in the archives...read for an hour, couldn't find it but found some great stuff, LOL.
But I am honestly wondering what some Christians think about the day one and day four literal rendering. I am not presenting myself as having all the answers by any stretch. Just wonder what other might think now that this got started.
I was shocked by some of those other threads from January though!!! People saying if you didn't believe young earth inpterpretation you can't be saved. That wouldn't be SOOOO bad if I hadn't read in other threads that if you didn't believe in faith alone, one could not possibly be saved. Then there was another one I can't remember - but you had to intellectually and theologocally grasp that one too or you were lost.
Geez, I didin't know any of this stuff when I trusted Christ and felt his calling in my heart - accepted Him as savior and trusted Him.
Dr. Walter
New Member
It is very simple. God created light in transit before he created the light bearers. This is a necessity for a six day creation because if He had not created light in transit then we are talking about millions of light years rather than six days creation. It is logical, it is simple and it is straight forward. He did not create the light bearers on day one but light in transit.
I'm following you on this, but not quite sure it's that simple. In Gen 1:5
So you say God created light for Earth before he created the Sun? This light He created on day one...it was not creation light - like a flashlight to use until the sun was created. It was specifically for DAY - meaning it was number one HERE not in transit... and second - it was not there at night because it said he called the darkness night. It clearly was talking about the light used for day and night, which is the sun.
This doesn't read literally in it's literary style. The scripture doesn't say he created light in transit- it said light - and furthermore, daylight, darkness also implying rotation of the earth - ie, the light was on only ONE side of the earth.
In transit from where? Was it here or in transit? Light apart from a source?
What logic are you using the believe this statement? At the speed of light it takes approximately 8 minutes for light to reach earth from our sun. Why do you think God couldn't create the sun on day one and have light to earth within 10 minutes?
WestminsterMan
New Member
quantumfaith
Active Member
I am with you WestministerMan, according to NASA researchers 10-20 billion "earth years".
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/age.html
Dr. Walter
New Member
You are making something hard that is simple. Night and day is spoken in regard to the earth and that is determined by the rotation of the earth just as it is determined by the rotation of the earth today. "Day" and "night" are regulated by the rotation of the earth on its axis.
Light is always in transit between the light bearers (stars, moon, sun) and the earth. As you know light travels at 186,000 miles per second and without instantly creating light in transit between stars and earth on day one it would take "light years" for the light of the stars to reach earth.
Creation of light would be necessary on day one to regulate day and night by rotation of the earth IF God determined that the light bearers would not be created until day four and that is exactly how the text reads.
There is nothing difficult to understand here. There is nothing illogical or contrary to the natural reading of the text here. Only evolutionary bias and total disregard for the fact that God created every living thing with appearance of full age. Created light full grown rather than taking light years. Hence, the creation of earth with the appearance of full age is harmonous with God's creative work in all other areas.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Evolutionist and Theistic Evolutionists believe neither Moses or Christ as both Moses and Christ believed the creation account of Genesis to be historical and literal.
Jesus identified the creation of Adam and Eve to be inclusive in connection with the same "beginning" as all other aspects of creation in Genesis 1-2.
Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
May I ask you from whence does Jesus refer when he says "have ye not read" if it is not from the Genesis account of creation in Genesis 1-2?
Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
May I ask, how can the creation of male and female be "from the beginning of creation" if the beginning of creation was billions of years before man came on the scene?
Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists neither believe Moses or Christ, meaning, they do not believe God's Word as did Moses and Christ who obviously interpreted Genesis 1-2 literal and historical.
Isn't much of what we consider "age" a product of decay, which supposedly didn't begin until after the Fall? Granted, for a growing organism, growth is the sign of age. But for the geological objects also in the discussion (and also stuff like the stars), what we see in "age" is a part of natural decay.
You're saying that light from the stars (the "bearers") was created before the stars, so that there was essentially, an illusion of stars for those few days? What would be the point of that? He might as well have created the stars, then, and in fact, did create "virtual stars"!
I always understood the literal interpretation to hold that God Himself (Shekinah glory?) somehow illuminated the earth before the sun was created.
Some nonliteral interpretations might hold that the narrative is simply the "view from earth", and that the creation of the sun and stars marked the time when they became visible, after the cloud of dust from creation settled. What you're saying flips this upside down, and says that the view from earth is that the sun and stars were created before the earth when they really weren't.
Let's agree that if it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. *wink*
Regarding light that lights the earth for 'DAY'....it only takes approximately 8 minutes for light to reach the earth. There is only ONE star that gives us 'daylight' - and that is our star the SUN. God didn't 'have' to wait until the fourth day to create the sun - we would have had light in 8 minutes.
I don't understand the point of light years and day light here from the point you are making. Star light is what we see at NIGHT. Star light from any other star only applies to night.
Yes...IF. That is not 'exactly' how the text reads, that is you putting in assumptions so it makes chronoligical sense. Where does it say God created light 'because' he was waiting for day four?
This a classic straw man. Star light other than our sun has no bearing whatsoever on day light on Earth. Bottom line here. It would not take light years for day light to reach the Earth - only 8 minutes - take our sun out of the equasion and you have star light hitting the Earth from every conceivable direction all at once 24x7 - none of which produces day light.
The straw man here is the assumption that it would take light years for utilitarian light to reach Earth based on stars other than our sun, which provide no utilitarian light.
PS. I don't believe Genesis is wrong or that God didn't create every single bit of our universe - I believe the literary style used does not convey in absolute lanuage the scientific reality. It doesn't change spiritual truth.
quantumfaith
Active Member
“It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts”
John Wooden
John Wooden
What I take away from this statement is the typical accusation that if Genesis is not believed to be absolutely literal in every way - someone doesn't believe Jesus. And hense, cannot trust Him as Lord and savior. Hense...lost. Geez this gets old.
But you bring up an EXCELLENT idea here. Let me expound because I have thought of this many times in the past.
Let's just suppose for a minute Jesus had decided to...ahem...'clarify' a few things that were...well let's just say - a little mis-understood from the Scriptures in His day.
What if Jesus had decided to get everybody together and tell them:
1. The Earth was actually ROUND. That the four corners of the Earth were maybe not so literal.
2. And further clarifying...that means that the Sun doesn't really rise per se, but rather, the Earth rotates on an axis while the sun stands still. And this rotation with a little tilt on our axis causes the four seasons?
We could go on with this, but the truth of the matter and reality of the situation is if Jesus did this, he would have been crucified way too early before the appointed time. Let's get really real here. Why didn't he clarify such things?
The issue is still this...if it doesn't fit YOUR linear understanding it cannot be true and must not be literal. You are still basing everything on your finite understanding of what and how light works in a linear fashion.
Isn't God bigger than our understanding? Can't He create light on Earth sans the Sun? He clearly defied the laws of science more than once in the Bible...why not in Genesis?
Let me re-state your thought. If it doesn't fit my linear/Chronological understanding, it may not be literal in literary style. But it is true. God created light for the stated purpose in Genesis on day one for day light and a day/night cycle. That much is in the text. And we also know that daylight comes from the Sun. I mean...this is an emperical observable fact. And these types of facts are there for US to observe and see.
Romans 1
Emphasis mine (underlines)
To a large degree, yes of course.
Yes God is greater than our understanding absolutely.
Yes He could - and on this point I'll agree with you absolutely He could. But you aren't coming to me with some bogus argument that he HAD to or it would have been light years before we had light, LOL. I take issue with these kind of things that pepole come up with to tie God's hands.
As the scripture clearly states (New Testament even, hey!), we can see the invisible things of God via observation of that which had been made.
I know it isn't black and white, I get that. The only question to really ponder is this - does the text represent scientific and absolute chronoligcal certainty that day light to regulate day and night...was created apart from the source of that light which God created and which is observable? Or is the text representing the truth that God created light for day and night.
Is there a precendent in the Scriptures for the text and the people of the day taking it very literally from Jesus himself -and yet it was mataphor or only a spiritual truth? Sure. The classic understanding of 'eat my flesh' and people were all freaking out saying how can we eat this mans flesh - this is a hard thing to hear - please clarify - but Jesus repeated it and even let them fall away from him. But it's clearly not literal right?
Right? And the Catholic would then use YOUR argument against ME?!!! The text is literal, even with clarification being asked from the very Son of God himself! Yet we still take it symbolically.
We all have perceived double standards - just depends on which side you happen to reside.
Dr. Walter
New Member
You have disproved the very argument you continue to advance. Sin and thus decay did not enter until after the fall (Rom. 5:12) and therefore appearance of age does not involve decay at all as Adam and Eve were created with full appearance of age without decay, without sin until after their fall.
No, that is not what I am saying. There was no illusion of stars, or illusion of the moon or illusion of the sun - nada, zilch! There was simply light in transient and the rotation of the earth provided night and day as it does now with light hitting its atmosphere.
Dr. Walter
New Member
No, I do not agree. There is a fool on every corner that will believe what they want regardless of the facts, regardless of how easy it is to disprove them and we meet them many times in our lives. There is nothing difficult in the biblical language. It is simple and straight forward. You simply have a bias that refuses to accept the simplicity of the language. Hence, the words are not difficult and therefore the issue is in your own mind not on the written page of God's Word.
The light is simply light and light is always in transent. The rotation of the earth is all that is necessary to divide day from night. The light bearers were not created until the fourth day. This creation of light apart from light bearers is used by Paul as a type to explain how God enlightens the darkness of the human spirit (2 Cor. 4:6) INTERIOR of man which is off limits to the light bearers (v. 7) or those who preach the gospel. Just as God spoke light into existence in Genesis 1:2-3 so Paul applies this to God creating the light of knowledge within the interior of man by fiat. The light bearer or in this case the vessel proclaiming the gospel cannot enter into that sphere and it is God that must empower the gospel in that sphere (1 Thes. 1:4-5). What God does interior to man is distinct from what gospel bearers do outside of man. Hence, the historical reality of Genesis 1:2-3 is used as the backdrop for how spiritual light occurs within the darkness of the human interior.
Stars were created on the fourth day and the creation of light in transient provided light in the night time. The sun was not created until the fourth day and therefore the light reflected by the moon in the night and received on earth during the day was light in transient. Remember only "Light" was created and it is this "light" that divided the day from the night and light is ALWAYS in transent.
There is no "straw man" here at all. It is simple, it is logical and it is in keeping with the recorded events of Genesis one and it is in keeping with the literal language. The light bearers came later, the light came first.
Dr. Walter
New Member
First, we are not talking about the WHOLE book of Genesis but we are talking about the creation account and the language being used in Genesis 1-2 in the context of creation.
Second, you made no attempt to show that the language used by Jesus, in particular the words "from the beginning" and the relationship between the creation of man and the creation of all other things are regarded by Christ to have occurred in connection with each other "in the beginning" rather than billions of years after the creation of the solar system and planet earth.
Third, your argument based upon imagined clarifications fails to consider that the abused interpretations of such phrases come from the Dark Ages by Rome rather than from the Biblical cultural context in which they were used. How do you know that the phrase "four corners" was not understood in the day it was written to simply mean four compass directions?
However, Christ's words concerning "from the beginning" repudiate the post-biblical theistic evolutionary context interpretation of the words in Genesis!
It remains true that you do not believe the words of Jesus if you don't believe the words of Moses as the words of Jesus confirmed the historical and literal authenticity of Moses' words in regard to creation.
Simple minds...why is there such disagreement among Christians on this interpretation in Gen 1? Why isn't there a big issue about the name of Jesus' mother? Because THAT is simple. Saying it's simple doesn't make it so. LOL.
Ok, so you are saying what I thought would be the 'out' in my second post then. That God created light only - light just like the sun instantly without the sun on day one - just light - no bearer - just light. I just want to know your reasoning.
Well there was but you appear to have backed off that position now since you have yet to give me the logic behind it. Funny because I thought you said in post 25 the following with which I take issue in particular:
I am not saying you are definitively wrong to believe God created LIGHT on day one - even without light bearers. Do you get that?
I take exception to your statement that it was a neccessity due to the reasoning that if He didn't - it would have taken millions of light years for day light to reach Earth. You have not yet addressed this and clarified.
God COULD have created the SUN on DAY ONE, and it would have taken only 8 minutes to get daylight to Earth. I still for the life of me, cannot fathom what you mean with this millions of light years statement - am I understanding you here? Seriously.
Oh and don't go far reaching and blaming Catholic middle ages for Christians thinking the Earth was flat at one time - give me a break dude. Are you going to blame Catholics for belief at one time in the Phoenix?
Fact is...Christians once thought the Earth was flat, and when it was demostrated definitively that it was round, the Bible suddenly took on new interpretations. So why didn't Jesus enlighten everyone about a round Earth? Want to tackle that one - I noticed you dodged that bullet.
And hey - I noticed this is getting a bit mean spirited here. That's not my intention so I'll blame myself for the rhetoric. Let's try to keep it more civil.