-
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!
What does Genesis One literally say?
- Thread starter Paul of Eugene
- Start date
Bartholomew
New Member
You're welcome, Paul!
Sure.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:7&8)
Here we see that the waters present on day two were divided. God created a "firmament", and set some of the waters above it. Although we're not told how much water was placed above it, it seems that it was significant amount. So what is this "firmament" that divides the waters?
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so...And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:14,15,17)
Here we see that the sun and moon are located "in" the firmament. Notice they are not said to be "on" or "attached to the surface of" the firmament, as they would presumably would have to have been had it been a solid dome. The fact that they are "in" the firmament means the firmament must have physical thickness at least as large as the dimensions of the sun and moon (which are not given). I therefore believe that the "firmament" is what we might call "outer-space" - the thing in which the stars are. Above it (presumably millions of miles away, going by the present beliefs about the universe's size) there are waters. What purpose they serve, and how much of them there are, I do not know, but as you point out, the Psalms assume they are still there; and so do I. Above these waters is the "third heaven", the abode of God, the place to where Jesus ascended. (Thus the "second heaven" would be the abode of the stars, called the "firmament of heaven". The "first heaven" would be the place where the birds fly, called the "open firmament of heaven" - Genesis 1:20). I think this is what Genesis 1 and other scriptures literally say; but they don't say the firmament was a solid dome.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Thank you, BobRyan for taking the time to respond to my post. May the Lord continue to bless you with every kind of wisdom and discernment in your daily walks with Him.
In order to keep the replies fairly simple, I am cutting out a lot of stuff that was in BobRyans post to me on the previous page, so readers had best look at that for better appreciation of the context.
You had this to say about the reference from Peter:
It is true there is water out in space, in the form of ice and vapor. But the water that is out there is such a little part of all the rest of it (as a percentage) that it would be a big mistake to characterize anything out there as being "waters". That would be a misleading way to describe our universe.
Concerning God as the source of the light in the first day you wrote:
The point is important. For our own sakes, we recall all our modern knowledge as we read and interpret things. But to understand what the author of Genesis had in mind, we cannot use knowledge he could not possibly have had to interpret what he wrote.
If you want to say that God gave modern knowledge to the writer, then you would have to explain why that knowledge did not include the currently known fact that there is no lack of daylight on the earth ever! The earth merely turns under a continuously shining Sun.
Concerning the dividing of the waters:
Concerning waters under the earth you wrote:
Ps 136:5-6
To Him who made the heavens with skill,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
6 To Him who spread out the earth above the waters,
NASB
Concerning the lights in the firmament you wrote:
There is no ambiguity as to place. They are placed in the firmament.
If you are sitting in a room and you hire an electrician and ask him to put a light in the ceiling, on coming in to check his work later you would be very upset to find anywhere but stuck up on the underside of the ceiling. It is the same thing for the ancient Israelites; as they looked up at the firmament, and noticed the stars in the firmament, they had a clear idea in mind, lights stuck on the underside of the firmament for their benefit.
On Day "5". Again pointing to exactly ONE - rotation of the planet with "Evening followed byh Morning" - ONE cycle. Day 5. Impossible for these animals to live for 400million years in darkness followed by 400million years in light.
James 1:23-24
he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
NASU
Just couldn't resist that one. I know its out of context . . .
I consider it misusing God's word to make it say things compatible with modern cosmology as regards deep space when it is not and then I consider it galling to be forbidden to reconcile it with modern cosmology as regards deep time! Either take it all literally or allow it to be reconciled with all of modern knowledge, not the parts you pick and choose for reasons of historical timing!
I think there is plenty of evidence that everybody who ever read Genesis clear through the new testament era believed creation occurred along the lines I presented. Can you find any interpreter who says otherwise from the days of Martin Luthor or earlier? No fair using interpreters who already believed Copernicus or later astronomers.
Let me repeat the verse from Job:
Job 37:18
18 "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies,
Strong as a molten mirror?
NASB
And as a bonus offer, consider the vision of Ezekiel. The Hebrew word for firmament in Genesis is repeated in describing the seat of God, meaning we have here an authentic description of what a firmament is like:
Ezek 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a Man [that is, God] above upon it.
KJV
The firmament in the chariot of God in the vision echoes in appearance and function the true firmament of the sky. It is solid, and above it is the very abode of God.
These references indicate an acceptance of the picture as I laid it out. There are extra biblical references as well that go into greator detail about this picture. You probably know all about them already.
In my own mind, it is clear that we both care greatly for the Word of God and seek to keep it from harm. I want to keep it from a brittle, literal interpretation that for many will result, I fear, in the snapping of their faith in it, as they become aware of the nature of deep time and evolution. You sincerely want to keep out what you think to be false knowledge that goes against what you believe it tells us. May the Lord somehow help us all to come closer to His truth.
In order to keep the replies fairly simple, I am cutting out a lot of stuff that was in BobRyans post to me on the previous page, so readers had best look at that for better appreciation of the context.
We are talking about the day of creation here. It is the evident purpose of this narrative to show when and how everything that exists came into being. It is not an omission of the writer that only earth and water aka heavens are mentioned. It is his intention to say just that.
You had this to say about the reference from Peter:
First of all, I am very far from tossing out the OT and the NT. I am, however, plainly setting forth what they really say.
Nor am I fighting against the truth of God's word; I believe it and trust it. None of us, however, are able to put our minds into the mind set of the forefathers to whom the revelationa first came in terms of cosmology. We know to much. That means we must distinguish between the mental framework of the transcribers and the spiritual truths God was imparting. We do this automatically according to the opinions we have as to what reality is compared to their own notions.
Hydrogen isn't water, and neither is oxygen.
It is true there is water out in space, in the form of ice and vapor. But the water that is out there is such a little part of all the rest of it (as a percentage) that it would be a big mistake to characterize anything out there as being "waters". That would be a misleading way to describe our universe.
If you mean to imply by this that science cannot make any confident statements about anything - then you are wrong. The information Science has secured with confidence is far vaster than you are letting on here. It is true that there is still a lot more to learn.
Concerning God as the source of the light in the first day you wrote:
It is actually presumptious to even think that the author of Genesis even knew that all light has to have a source, if it comes to that.
It is common knowledge that prior to Erosthenes and his greek contemporaries nobody in the ancient world even suspected that the world was round. You are reading modern knowledge into the intepretation of the text.
The point is important. For our own sakes, we recall all our modern knowledge as we read and interpret things. But to understand what the author of Genesis had in mind, we cannot use knowledge he could not possibly have had to interpret what he wrote.
If you want to say that God gave modern knowledge to the writer, then you would have to explain why that knowledge did not include the currently known fact that there is no lack of daylight on the earth ever! The earth merely turns under a continuously shining Sun.
Concerning the dividing of the waters:
Above the atmosphere? The concept of an atmosphere is another of your automatic modern insertions. The waters were water, of course, and we all know the form of water. The waters were all one until the firmament separated them. The firmament literally lifted up some water from other water, making an empty space (air, we call it today). Nothing is said about the water above being changed into gas or solid state. It's just held back from falling by the firmament. That is the straightforward reading of the text.
I hope your biblical interpretation is better than your interpretation of my words. I never said one should read confusion into this text anywhere, and I think it is actually pretty plainly stated. Moses knew his audience was secure in the knowledge of where the sky was and his narrative is intended to explain how it got there. And the scripture plainly says concerning "earth": "God called the dry land earth". I wonder what you have in mind when you insist on saying the opposite of what God said here? Of course, in the flood narrative, the earth is temporarily covered with water, but that doesn't change the fact that the earth isn't the water.
A cheap shot, BoyRyan! You know that anybody who reckons the earth to be billions of years old also reckons that the sun was shining on the earth all that time.
Concerning waters under the earth you wrote:
On the other hand, there is nothing to say the waters went away, either. Consider this verse:
Ps 136:5-6
To Him who made the heavens with skill,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
6 To Him who spread out the earth above the waters,
NASB
Concerning the lights in the firmament you wrote:
The number of lights is not given as two. What is given as two are the TWO GREAT LIGHTS. The stars are also created. ALSO meaning also on this day, ALSO meaning also in this place.
There is no ambiguity as to place. They are placed in the firmament.
If you are sitting in a room and you hire an electrician and ask him to put a light in the ceiling, on coming in to check his work later you would be very upset to find anywhere but stuck up on the underside of the ceiling. It is the same thing for the ancient Israelites; as they looked up at the firmament, and noticed the stars in the firmament, they had a clear idea in mind, lights stuck on the underside of the firmament for their benefit.
On Day "5". Again pointing to exactly ONE - rotation of the planet with "Evening followed byh Morning" - ONE cycle. Day 5. Impossible for these animals to live for 400million years in darkness followed by 400million years in light.
I did not make up the passage in the first part where it says the earth was without form; I did not make up the passage where Peter says the earth was made out of water; I did not make up the passage where God called the dry land earth; I merely report what the bible literally says.
The reference to "kinds" is merely an recognition that like begets like; there is no question that the literal narrative is not consistent with deep time any more than it is consistent with deep space.
What is the creationist mind set?
James 1:23-24
he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
NASU
Just couldn't resist that one. I know its out of context . . .
I flatly deny seeking to trash God's word. I consider the words sacred. I refuse to ruin this beautiful narrative by making it say what it does not say. Instead, I accept it as showing us what God is like, not as showing us what the cosmos are like.
I consider it misusing God's word to make it say things compatible with modern cosmology as regards deep space when it is not and then I consider it galling to be forbidden to reconcile it with modern cosmology as regards deep time! Either take it all literally or allow it to be reconciled with all of modern knowledge, not the parts you pick and choose for reasons of historical timing!
I think there is plenty of evidence that everybody who ever read Genesis clear through the new testament era believed creation occurred along the lines I presented. Can you find any interpreter who says otherwise from the days of Martin Luthor or earlier? No fair using interpreters who already believed Copernicus or later astronomers.
Let me repeat the verse from Job:
Job 37:18
18 "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies,
Strong as a molten mirror?
NASB
And as a bonus offer, consider the vision of Ezekiel. The Hebrew word for firmament in Genesis is repeated in describing the seat of God, meaning we have here an authentic description of what a firmament is like:
Ezek 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a Man [that is, God] above upon it.
KJV
The firmament in the chariot of God in the vision echoes in appearance and function the true firmament of the sky. It is solid, and above it is the very abode of God.
These references indicate an acceptance of the picture as I laid it out. There are extra biblical references as well that go into greator detail about this picture. You probably know all about them already.
In my own mind, it is clear that we both care greatly for the Word of God and seek to keep it from harm. I want to keep it from a brittle, literal interpretation that for many will result, I fear, in the snapping of their faith in it, as they become aware of the nature of deep time and evolution. You sincerely want to keep out what you think to be false knowledge that goes against what you believe it tells us. May the Lord somehow help us all to come closer to His truth.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Thank you, Aefting, for your scholarly contribution to the ongoing discussion. May the Lord use your gifts in many ways to advance His kingdom!
First, it should be noted that the word translated “insects” in Leviticus 11:20 (‘All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.’ ESV) does not always refer to what we know as insects. The Hebrew word is sherets (TWOT 2467a). The Biblical usage of the word shows that it can refer to swarming sea creatures (Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:10), swarming creatures on dry land (Gen. 7:21), winged insects (Lev. 11:20-23), moles, mice, and reptiles (Lev. 11:29), things that go on its belly, things that go on all fours, and things that have many feet (Lev. 11:42). Consequently, not all “sherets” have 6 legs, even by modern scientific classification.
To determine which “sherets” were clean and which were unclean, one had to determine how it “goes” on the earth. For example, those that go on their bellies are unclean (Lev. 11:42). In addition to that restriction, if a “sheret” goes on all fours, it is also unclean (Lev. 11:42 again). Well, what does “goes on all fours” mean when some “sherets” have 4 legs (reptiles), some have 6 legs (insects), and some have lots of legs (Lev. 11:42)? I think that Lev. 11:20-23 helps us here because in verse 21 the Bible refers to “sherets” that have 2 special legs (in addition to their other four) that allow them to hop or go more upright on the ground. Locust (in 11:22) are an example of a winged “sheret” that doesn’t “go on all fours.” To quote Gordon Wenham, "Going on all fours is the opposite of waling uprightly: the number of legs is irrelevant."
How do we know that “goes on all fours” is an idiom? In this case, at least, the Biblical usage treats it as an idiom.
Andy </font>[/QUOTE]OK first of all I think if you carefully go over the language, you will see that the locusts ARE counted as being among the "sherets" that go on all fours.
Lev 11:21
21 "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.
NASU
Now the expression "walk on all fours" is admittedly capable of being an idiom. If this were the only way the biblical writer described them, we would have no issue. But we also have this verse:
Lev 11:23
23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU
Here we are no longer using language suited for idiomatic interpretation, and we have left the usual catagories. We are describing some of the sherets - that they are four footed and have wings.
Four footed creatures were a catagory in the mind of Peter and Paul distinct from birds and crawling things: we see this from these New Testament references.
Acts 11:6-7
and when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air.
7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
NASU
Rom 1:23
3 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASU
Note the catagories there: men, birds, four-footed animals, crawling creatures. These listings in these unconnected references seem to show the actual grouping of animals in the minds of first century jews. Its Greek, of course, not Hebrew, they can't use the word "sherets". If the writer in Leviticus had used these same catagories, he would have escaped the error.
So there you have it, the bible still says there were some four footed winged things out there. I think it sheds light on how to go about using the Bible as our guide, that is, not for matters scientific, but as our guide in spiritual things.
OK, I think this is worth addressing. I’ve never taken the time to research this before today, so forgive me if I’m not thorough enough or, if in my haste, I happen to make some minor errors.
First, it should be noted that the word translated “insects” in Leviticus 11:20 (‘All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.’ ESV) does not always refer to what we know as insects. The Hebrew word is sherets (TWOT 2467a). The Biblical usage of the word shows that it can refer to swarming sea creatures (Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:10), swarming creatures on dry land (Gen. 7:21), winged insects (Lev. 11:20-23), moles, mice, and reptiles (Lev. 11:29), things that go on its belly, things that go on all fours, and things that have many feet (Lev. 11:42). Consequently, not all “sherets” have 6 legs, even by modern scientific classification.
To determine which “sherets” were clean and which were unclean, one had to determine how it “goes” on the earth. For example, those that go on their bellies are unclean (Lev. 11:42). In addition to that restriction, if a “sheret” goes on all fours, it is also unclean (Lev. 11:42 again). Well, what does “goes on all fours” mean when some “sherets” have 4 legs (reptiles), some have 6 legs (insects), and some have lots of legs (Lev. 11:42)? I think that Lev. 11:20-23 helps us here because in verse 21 the Bible refers to “sherets” that have 2 special legs (in addition to their other four) that allow them to hop or go more upright on the ground. Locust (in 11:22) are an example of a winged “sheret” that doesn’t “go on all fours.” To quote Gordon Wenham, "Going on all fours is the opposite of waling uprightly: the number of legs is irrelevant."
How do we know that “goes on all fours” is an idiom? In this case, at least, the Biblical usage treats it as an idiom.
Andy </font>[/QUOTE]OK first of all I think if you carefully go over the language, you will see that the locusts ARE counted as being among the "sherets" that go on all fours.
Lev 11:21
21 "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.
NASU
Now the expression "walk on all fours" is admittedly capable of being an idiom. If this were the only way the biblical writer described them, we would have no issue. But we also have this verse:
Lev 11:23
23 "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU
Here we are no longer using language suited for idiomatic interpretation, and we have left the usual catagories. We are describing some of the sherets - that they are four footed and have wings.
Four footed creatures were a catagory in the mind of Peter and Paul distinct from birds and crawling things: we see this from these New Testament references.
Acts 11:6-7
and when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air.
7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
NASU
Rom 1:23
3 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASU
Note the catagories there: men, birds, four-footed animals, crawling creatures. These listings in these unconnected references seem to show the actual grouping of animals in the minds of first century jews. Its Greek, of course, not Hebrew, they can't use the word "sherets". If the writer in Leviticus had used these same catagories, he would have escaped the error.
So there you have it, the bible still says there were some four footed winged things out there. I think it sheds light on how to go about using the Bible as our guide, that is, not for matters scientific, but as our guide in spiritual things.
A_Christian
New Member
Puppy Pucky! You were given a wonderful answer
and you place "Scientific definition" above the
Bible. The 6 appendages on some insects don't look anything like the appendages on others. They
are not used in the same way.
The Bible makes a distinction and "modern" science seems to toss everything together to
suit their evolutionistic agenda.
and you place "Scientific definition" above the
Bible. The 6 appendages on some insects don't look anything like the appendages on others. They
are not used in the same way.
The Bible makes a distinction and "modern" science seems to toss everything together to
suit their evolutionistic agenda.
A_Christian
New Member
Yes, and most of those were agnostics at best.
Karl Marx loved Darwin by the way. And Nazi
Germany had their own favorites. So they
were not God inspired.
Karl Marx loved Darwin by the way. And Nazi
Germany had their own favorites. So they
were not God inspired.
Par the course, you are of course wrong again. Also, you are trying to associate an idea with evil. A theory/idea has absolutely nothing to do with those people who would seek to use or abuse the theory. That's a sad rhetorical trick you are trying to pull, and it's one that will back fire. Or do I need to remind you of the inquisition? How about other atrocities? BTW-social darwinism is not the same as evolution.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Yesterday I watched a squirrel eating a piece of corn. He sat back on his haunches, held the corn in his front paws, and chewed on it. Do you think that makes the squirrel a two footed animal? Of course not. All the insects use those six legs to walk on. That means they are all legs.
[Man] Made in God's image - not the image of an ape.
Being made in God's image and likeness does not refer to our physical shape. It refers to us having a soul as part of our being. Note that Genesis 2 says "and man became a living soul" AFTER the physical form is created. Hence, the physical form itself does not constitute being in the image and likeness of God.
Being made in God's image and likeness does not refer to our physical shape. It refers to us having a soul as part of our being. Note that Genesis 2 says "and man became a living soul" AFTER the physical form is created. Hence, the physical form itself does not constitute being in the image and likeness of God.
Yes, it appears that you are correct. Let me modify slightly what I said previously. It seems that the Lord is making an exception for certain winged “sherets” that “go on all fours.” Those “sherets” whose fifth and sixth legs (i.e., the joined ones above their feet) allow them to hop (or to go more upright according to Wenham) are edible.
Concerning verse 23, I don’t have a problem with the idea that “which are four-footed” is just another way of expressing the idiom, “go on all fours.” In fact, if you are correct about locust being a subset of "sherets" that "go on all fours," then they are also a subset of winged "sherets" that are "four-footed." I say that because verse 23 begins with "But all other..." Obviously the author of Levititus knows that locust and other insects have 6 legs, he refers to them in verse 21. How do you explain what would be such a ridiculous blunder unless both of these expressions really are idioms?
Thank you for those NT passages. I never even thought about those.
Andy
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Well, I don't explain them. I count them being an instance of error. It's easy enough to realize how one could accidently write such a thing, having just written about "going on all fours" a couple of times . . and parchment is expensive after all, you can't just highlight and delete - so it was allowed to pass on.
Sometimes I think that as the angel in charge of seeing the scriptures contained the spiritual message needed by the whole world watched these words get penned, he kinda smiled, thinking what consternation it would bring to the literalists down through the ages.
[ June 09, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
I’m sure you’re being facetious but, just for the record, that’s not how it happened. This gets to the heart of the matter and why anyone would bother with such minutia in Leviticus 11. According to Lev. 11:1, the statement in 11:23 comes from God Himself. And, as I’m sure you know, the Bible teaches in 2 Peter 1:21 that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (ESV).” So, not only do we have the testimony of Lev. 11:1, we also have NT confirmation that Leviticus 11:23 is God’s Word written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. There was no angel smiling at errors.
So the stakes are high. I can understand a scribe making an inadvertent error. I can’t understand a God-breathed error, which is what you are suggesting for Leviticus 11:23.
Andy
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I’m sure you’re being facetious but, just for the record, that’s not how it happened. This gets to the heart of the matter and why anyone would bother with such minutia in Leviticus 11. According to Lev. 11:1, the statement in 11:23 comes from God Himself. And, as I’m sure you know, the Bible teaches in 2 Peter 1:21 that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (ESV).” So, not only do we have the testimony of Lev. 11:1, we also have NT confirmation that Leviticus 11:23 is God’s Word written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. There was no angel smiling at errors.
So the stakes are high. I can understand a scribe making an inadvertent error. I can’t understand a God-breathed error, which is what you are suggesting for Leviticus 11:23.
Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Well do you interpret scriptures according to what they really say no matter what that is or do adjust what they say to keep them from being what you would believe to be an error?
I submit that the reason modern interpreters go to great lengths to deny the literal cosmology as it is laid out in Genesis One and as it was understood by everyone who read it until science discovered the true nature of the solar system and the Galaxy is just this - to keep themselves from having to acknowledge that there was an error in the actual wording.
Martin Luthor reasoned correctly about what scripture says, and let it be known that this upstart Copernicus was asserting things contrary to scripture. Martin Luthor was right. But so was Copernicus. Accepting the literal teachings of scripture misled Martin Luthor. That is a historical fact.
History is repeating itself in the evolution debates.
I think that's a fair question. I guess I'd have to admit, since I believe in inerrancy, that I would never come up with an interpretation that showed God or the Bible to be wrong. However, I don't feel that I've ever had to be intellectually dishonest with myself in any of my interpretations. For example, even if you take out the supernatural in Lev. 11, I would have a hard time believing that Moses, someone highly trained in Egyptian schools, could be so careless as to say that insects have 4 legs, especially when he is quoting the Lord.
Well, there is a big difference between the number of legs on an insect or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and the so-called truth of evolution. With insects and orbits, we can directly observe these facts; with evolution, we have to draw conclusions from directly observable facts. If evolutionary scientists draw conclusions that contradict a sound, literal interpretation of Scripture, then I will side with Scripture every time. Man is fallible; God is infallible. It's as simple as that.
There are a great many things about Luther's teachings that I disagree with. It is possible for men, including me, to make mistakes in interpretation. You found an example in one of my earlier posts. I just don't see any wiggle room in the first chapter of Genesis. I see six literal days. I see the NT teaching that death came as a result of the fall of Adam. I see the NT teaching that Adam was the first man. I just don't see any room for billions of years.
Thank you for a good discussion.
Andy
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Thank you again brother Aefting for your courtesy and honest replies.
Starlight crosses billions of light years to reach us. Straightforward interpretation is we have observed the universe to be billions of years old as a consequence.
Some assert the starlight once moved greatly faster - as much faster as to account for light reaching us over the billions of years in literal biblical time frames. Then the light slowed to its present rate.
Such a slowing would require the events perceived by that same light to be perceived as happening slower, just as a record, when slowed, makes the songs sound slower.
The galaxies way out at the farthest points of visibility do not rotate slower. They rotate just as fast.
Theses observations meet all your criterion. They are of orbits (stars around their galaxies) that we are observing directly. They are of distances measured in straightforward fashion. The logic is ironclad and rigorus. The implications are clear and plain. Now what do you do with that information?
Using "observed" orbits alone it is possible to show that the universe is billions of years old. The stars orbit their galaxies however far back we look to see. The rate they are orbiting the galaxies can be determined by examining the doppler shifts for the receding edges vs the approaching edges.
Starlight crosses billions of light years to reach us. Straightforward interpretation is we have observed the universe to be billions of years old as a consequence.
Some assert the starlight once moved greatly faster - as much faster as to account for light reaching us over the billions of years in literal biblical time frames. Then the light slowed to its present rate.
Such a slowing would require the events perceived by that same light to be perceived as happening slower, just as a record, when slowed, makes the songs sound slower.
The galaxies way out at the farthest points of visibility do not rotate slower. They rotate just as fast.
Theses observations meet all your criterion. They are of orbits (stars around their galaxies) that we are observing directly. They are of distances measured in straightforward fashion. The logic is ironclad and rigorus. The implications are clear and plain. Now what do you do with that information?
I really don't have a problem with any of it. It's not my field but I'll take it for granted that you're right and all the calculations are sound. I just believe that God created it that way, on day four. As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't believe that's deceptive on God's part -- it's just what one would expect. The tree had rings; I suspect that Adam had a belly button (although, that's speculation on my part). When Jesus turned the water into wine, He created something with apparent age. A chemist analyzing that wine would have come up with a completely wrong date for its age (if that's possible to do). God created a marvelous solar system for astronomers to study and He set it in motion on day four in all its glory.
Andy
I never thought of Jesus turning water into wine (with apparent age) compared to God creating the universe with apparent age. The mind can’t begin to comprehend the infinite Gods awesome power!
This is a prime example of what will happen when one prays for the Holy Sprit to open ones eyes before reading or studying the Bible. Instead of thinking "...the angel in charge of seeing the scriptures contained the spiritual message needed by the whole world watched these words get penned, he kinda smiled, thinking what consternation it would bring to the literalists down through the ages."-Paul of Eugene
(Titus 1:2) “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began..”
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Suppose you teach a SS lesson or preach a sermon that God uses to touch someone's life. I trust that has happened, else why do you do these things? Do you feel you were granted inerrancy in that lesson or sermon? Would you accuse God of lieing to the listners should there be a minor error somewhere in your lesson?
God never lies. It is the human part of the equation that is reponsible for any errors.
In making the comment above about apparant age, we have to consider the apparant age of the stars as well. This includes starlight that shows stars exploding and dying in the distant past. God, then, would be seen as showing us a star that never really existed (it's gone now) and a "story" about that star being really there was played out before our eyes.
God never lies. He wouldn't do that. Those ancient stars were real.
God never lies. It is the human part of the equation that is reponsible for any errors.
In making the comment above about apparant age, we have to consider the apparant age of the stars as well. This includes starlight that shows stars exploding and dying in the distant past. God, then, would be seen as showing us a star that never really existed (it's gone now) and a "story" about that star being really there was played out before our eyes.
God never lies. He wouldn't do that. Those ancient stars were real.
A_Christian
New Member
What is reality? Scientists can only imagine
according to their mindset. God is far BIGGER
than that.
You base what was, on what you presently can
only experience now. You are attempting to hold
GOD to your very limited criteria and judge HIM
a liar if HIS reality doesn't fit YOUR presumptions.
according to their mindset. God is far BIGGER
than that.
You base what was, on what you presently can
only experience now. You are attempting to hold
GOD to your very limited criteria and judge HIM
a liar if HIS reality doesn't fit YOUR presumptions.