Jump to content


Photo

Universe Created In 6 Days?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

#41 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:01 AM

There is only one correct account of history. And calling Genesis "literal" has no meaning. It isn't a literal text. There's plenty in it that requires context and understanding of other concepts. And the interpretations have all already been done from Hebrew into English. The text says what it says. Arguing for a multitude of different meanings cannot deny the fact that the text refers to one actual history.


Look I see your point regarding trusting the translators, yet you will find quite consistently that the bible has been incorrectly interpreted with regard to the word "erets". In other places the word may only be referring to one single region (Israel), that is how flexible the word is. The King James era meaning of the word "earth" is the same as "erets" because obviously neither the Jews nor the Olde English understood that the earth was in fact a planet, they had a word that meant the "soil" or the "land". It's only recently that the word "earth" has changed its meaning in the English language to refer to planet Earth yet for some unknown reason modern English translators have continued to use the word earth in place of "land", giving this false impression of planet earth being created on day 3. This is 100% untrue, both the fact that they did not know about the earth being a planet and therefore had NO SUCH WORD , and the fact that the context itself is 100% clear that land is created from out the water, show that on day 3 it is merely land being created and not the entire planet. I am pretty sure you will not face this simple fact. It is however a simple fact easy for others to see. Probably better just to agree to disagree.

#42 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:18 AM

You convince us that the Earth must have been created outside the six days recorded.


Because that's what the bible says, the bible describes a watery dark earth, and only THEN was light produced, there was evening and morning, the first day.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


(I know we are going in circles, it's because you are not acknowledging the basic logic put forward and then going on from there)

#43 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:26 AM

Look I see your point regarding trusting the translators, yet you will find quite consistently that the bible has been incorrectly interpreted with regard to the word "erets". In other places the word may only be referring to one single region (Israel), that is how flexible the word is.

I know the word is flexible. And this has nothing to do with trusting the translation.

Our own English word "Earth" is just as flexible.

The King James era meaning of the word "earth" is the same as "erets" because obviously neither the Jews nor the Olde English understood that the earth was in fact a planet, they had a word that meant the "soil" or the "land". It's only recently that the word "earth" has changed its meaning in the English language to refer to planet Earth yet for some unknown reason modern English translators have continued to use the word earth in place of "land", giving this false impression of planet earth being created on day 3.

You're going to need some evidence for that. Why do you believe "eretz" could not have meant a planet?

This is 100% untrue, both the fact that they did not know about the earth being a planet and therefore had NO SUCH WORD , and the fact that the context itself is 100% clear that land is created from out the water, show that on day 3 it is merely land being created and not the entire planet. I am pretty sure you will not face this simple fact. It is however a simple fact easy for others to see. Probably better just to agree to disagree.

Which "fact" am I facing? You've a laundry list of unsupported assertions there. I'm having trouble keeping up.

Because that's what the bible says, the bible describes a watery dark earth, and only THEN was light produced, there was evening and morning, the first day.

And that necessitatest a billions of years hiatus, how, exactly?

#44 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:12 AM

I know the word is flexible. And this has nothing to do with trusting the translation.

Our own English word "Earth" is just as flexible.

You're going to need some evidence for that. Why do you believe "eretz" could not have meant a planet?


I thought we have already dealt with that , verse 10 is referring to dry land, not a planet. The context is clear. Also the planet was already created before light shone on the waters where the spirit of God was hovering. So the additional reference to the creation of earth in verse 10 (day 3) must be referring to something else, because already we had light on the waters of this watery earth on day 1.

In verse 10 (day 3) it could not mean a planet because it says this:
1:9 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.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

There are waters and there is dry land, God called the dry land "erets". This has got nothing to do with the planet earth , its regarding sea and dry land.


And that necessitatest a billions of years hiatus, how, exactly?


I never said a billion years. The creation of the watery earth occurred before day 1, this could be any time frame, the bible does not give time frames:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


#45 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:38 AM


I thought we have already dealt with that , verse 10 is referring to dry land, not a planet. The context is clear. Also the planet was already created before light shone on the waters where the spirit of God was hovering. So the additional reference to the creation of earth in verse 10 (day 3) must be referring to something else, because already we had light on the waters of this watery earth on day 1.

"Something else" being....?

There are waters and there is dry land, God called the dry land "erets". This has got nothing to do with the planet earth , its regarding sea and dry land.

Uh .. The land and sea are on the planet Earth, you know?

I never said a billion years. The creation of the watery earth occurred before day 1, this could be any time frame, the bible does not give time frames:

The bible says everything was created was made in six days. It says all things were created in the beginning. The bible very much so does give a time frame!

#46 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:37 AM

"Something else" being....?

LOL! Something else being the land. I'm not criticising you but you do seem slow to catch on. Isn't that what I have been saying the whole time, verse 1-2 are referring to the creation of planet earth, a watery earth, verse 9 and 10 are referring to the creation of land as opposed to the sea.





The bible says everything was created was made in six days. It says all things were created in the beginning. The bible very much so does give a time frame!


LOL, we really are repeating ourselves here. The bible does not say that.

#47 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 18 July 2012 - 03:42 AM

LOL! Something else being the land. I'm not criticising you but you do seem slow to catch on. Isn't that what I have been saying the whole time, verse 1-2 are referring to the creation of planet earth, a watery earth, verse 9 and 10 are referring to the creation of land as opposed to the sea.

I thought you said eretz could not refer to the planet.

LOL, we really are repeating ourselves here. The bible does not say that.

Sure, it does:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

Exodus 31:17

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth



And:


John 1 The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


And we know the "the beginning" refers to the entire six days because people are described as being created "in the beginning".


Matthew 19:4

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’


Your story is rather incomprehensible. I see no reason to doubt the plain meaning of what is written.

#48 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 09:55 AM

I thought you said eretz could not refer to the planet.

No it depends on context. They did not have a word for the planet earth, therefore when the context is referring to land on a grand scale, or the surface of the planet on a grand scale, the word "erets" can be referring to the entire surface of the planet, in essence the planet. I have been 100% consistent in ascribing Genesis 1:1-2 to the planet earth. I keep referring to it as the watery earth that was created before light was created. (I'm repeating myself again here)




Sure, it does:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

Exodus 31:17

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth

The bible does not say "everything" was created in six days, it refers to the heavens (described in Genesis 1 as the expanse above the surface of the waters, ie earth's sky that was created on day 2) and it refers to the earth (described in Genesis 1 as the "dry land" created in day 3)





John 1 The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


And we know the "the beginning" refers to the entire six days because people are described as being created "in the beginning".

The beginning started BEFORE the six days, this was when the Word was with God. Unless you have some sort of weird philosophy that Jesus (the Word) was created at the same time as the planet??
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.




Matthew 19:4

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’


Well obviously Adam and Eve were not made on the FIRST day. So this was referring to the beginning of Man, not the beginning of the sky and land and waters.

Your story is rather incomprehensible. I see no reason to doubt the plain meaning of what is written.


The plain meaning of the text is that the earth and the universe were created before the first day and light was created. Then light was made on day 1, then sky was made on day 2, then the land was made on day 3. I agree , I do not see any reason to doubt the plain meaning of what is written and am still waiting for a non-repetitive suggestion as to why its incorrect to see the watery earth created before light was created as actually described in Genesis 1:1-2, and the land created on day 3, this is what the text is actually saying.

#49 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:10 PM

No it depends on context. They did not have a word for the planet earth, therefore when the context is referring to land on a grand scale, or the surface of the planet on a grand scale, the word "erets" can be referring to the entire surface of the planet, in essence the planet. I have been 100% consistent in ascribing Genesis 1:1-2 to the planet earth. I keep referring to it as the watery earth that was created before light was created. (I'm repeating myself again here)

Great. Posted Image

The bible does not say "everything" was created in six days

Sure, it does. Right there:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them



it refers to the heavens (described in Genesis 1 as the expanse above the surface of the waters, ie earth's sky that was created on day 2) and it refers to the earth (described in Genesis 1 as the "dry land" created in day 3)

What might be in these two places (heaven and earth) that is not elsewhere?

The beginning started BEFORE the six days, this was when the Word was with God. Unless you have some sort of weird philosophy that Jesus (the Word) was created at the same time as the planet??

Jesus is referred to as being separate from what was created - given that everything that was made was made through Him. And given that your "before" might be a nano-second, I hardly think you're making any grand point by insisting upon two time periods.

Well obviously Adam and Eve were not made on the FIRST day. So this was referring to the beginning of Man, not the beginning of the sky and land and waters.

Which turns the first passages into nonsense and is directly refuted by the second:

Matthew 19:4

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made [man] at the beginning of man ‘made them male and female,’

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

Nope, creation is taught as six days and everything created is included.

The plain meaning of the text is that the earth and the universe were created before the first day and light was created. Then light was made on day 1, then sky was made on day 2, then the land was made on day 3. I agree , I do not see any reason to doubt the plain meaning of what is written and am still waiting for a non-repetitive suggestion as to why its incorrect to see the watery earth created before light was created as actually described in Genesis 1:1-2, and the land created on day 3, this is what the text is actually saying.

Your ideas are going to need some very compelling evidence. Suggesting that the plain reading supports your time before day 1, where:
  • such a time is nowhere made explicit,
  • such a time could be a nano-second, and
  • the verses we've looked at leave nothing necessitating such a time
is nonsense.
  • Salsa likes this

#50 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:57 AM

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth

Both of these quotes are corrupt.
The proof is that they contradict the division of the one heaven.

I suppose I could be considered a literalist. Although, I don't like putting people into boxes and assingned names, I nevertheless, allow myself to be thought of as a literalist, but, only in that I agree with the notion of understanding scripture as plain and direct speech and as having a strict preciseness. Scripture has both of those traits because God is the author if scritpure, not man. It is God who authored the Bible in a way allowing it to be understood by all men of faith. God is a perfect communicator and knows all languages and so, in English the Bible presents all the same information that exists in any other language, such as Greek or Hebrew. There is no of a superior language, but only that there are diversities of languages. This is proven by the fact that no one has ever presented any superior knowledge of scripture that isn't found in English, for example, in disregard of any knowledge of Hebrew.
Men can and do, however, change what is written and corrupt the text.
God is also precise in his speech. His preciseness is little appreciated by many, as proven by how men casually change his words and his usage of them. Lastly, God never contradicts his own speech.
For these reasons the general notion of literal is my stance, which I clarify here and now, only so that no one misunderstands me and becomes offended when I point out the obvious corruptions that men insert into the text, and into its meaning.
By literal I mean, "one who reads scripture as literature." That is, as literature the scriptures use all available uses of a language. So, in my understanding, a literalist knows when something is metaphoric, an analogous, narrative, poetic, and prose.

The above quoted scriptures are a good example of corruption by a little change, a slight.
The scripture correctly states...."For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth..." and this is the reading in both quoted passages.

One way to discern the preciseness of God's speech is to note what he doesn't state, or in the way he doesn't say a thing.

For example, in Genesis 1:1 It says that God 'created'...(which is, "past tense") and then says, "the heaven and the earth" Notice it doesn't read..."created heaven and earth". So, both things are unique and singular. If anyone says that "heaven" should be read "heavens", then the corruption is proven by the immediate contradiction that arises where we read about how God seperated the waters of the deep into two waters. Some waters above a thing called "firmament", and the other waters, the waters that remaining below the thing named "firmament." If the heavens had formery been a plurality in number, then the creation of two more heavens makes no sense. Especially in light of the fact that the newly formed one called "firmament" is given the proper name..."Heaven."

God teaches by rightly dividing what was once set before our eyes as a whole. And, the wholeness remains, but our understanding becomes more discriminating by division.

Solomon, being the wise man that he was, reveals his knowledge of how the heavens are. So, we should be able to see that the phrase "in six days God created heaven and earth" is a phrase speaking of a unity. It is a phrase which in context refers to all the things we see exist as one thing in our experience, namely, the land and seas of the earth, and the moon, sun and stars above us in our heaven. Some things of it are on earth and some not on earth. The universe consiting of heaven and earth.
Whereas, stating that, "God created the heaven and the earth", precisely states that he created a singular and seperate thing termed "the heaven", and also another thing termed uniquely "the earth".
In the end these two things, heaven, and earth, shall resolve into one place, and then will they be one in the Heaven as God so properly named it. In the mean time they are rightly divided to teach the ignorant, such as you and I, concerning what we can't very well see, and more aptly...discern, rightly.

The main problem with one of the arguments presented in this thread is the misunderstanding about the above quoted verses of scripture. As if they speak of the singular heaven that existed prior to the six days of creation week. That is incorrect because each of the six days are required to be defined as consisting of a "evening and a morning". Whereas, the heaven wherein God sits on his most high throne does not consist of mornings and evenings, for his day is eternal.

The proof of there being a misunderstanding is given in verses, 14 through 19, of Genesis, chapter one. Those verses clearly say that the "firmament" that seperates the waters above it, from the waters below it, is the "heaven" wherein all the visible stars, sun, moon exist. That is not the heaven where God sits on his throne.
Again, another expanse of heaven is spoken of in which the birds of the earth fly. And, both of these are of the Heaven.

These points show that what we call 'universe' is the 'firmament' of God's creation week, which firmament was made on the second day. Which again plainly shows that the heaven of verse one of Genesis is not our universe at all. Which heaven is that wherein God has up to now dwelt with his holy angels, and other hosts of heave.

Note that 'hosts' of heaven, having other discernible meanings, as well implies that God was the ruler of his house prior to the arrival of his diverse creatures.

I wonder why it is that some people have no grasp of why God did these things just as he said he did them.

Why would God create "the heaven" and also at the same time "the earth" and allow angels existence for some span of time while, all the while, leaving the earth set down in a deep place, with no light shining on it, no form to it, and void? "potter's clay"?

Why would God create the universe with witnesses present. And, also putting them to good use in the work. For, he plainly states of the witnesses and helpers...."let us make." Is he not presenting "legal proof of ability"? Which proofs God provided befor all the angelic doubters who having awakened in the morning of their creation shouting for joy, then, later on, in the process of time, began to conspire against their creator?

How did such intelligent, powerful creatures make that blatant error of judgment do you suppose?

Isn't it obvious that those angels of the heaven rebelled because they didn't believe the witness of God concerning his actions before they existed? Same as men on earth do now and claim evolution or naturalism?


As if the angels began to suppose that God was not really any different than them. As if to claim that he was merely the first to awaken to awareness?

So, God said to those angels...watch this.
And what did he have them watch?
He made them witness the very thing they had overlooked in their pride of life. The formless, muddy, useless looking, lump of clay set down at the bottom of the deep in utter darkness...the earth. A deep thing.

Isn't that the teaching of God? That he is the potter. That all creatures are but his clay as it are also?

Doesn't God say that he takes the foolish things, like the earth, by which to confound the wise?
Isn't that what he did when he took hold of the earth and made it fit for man to dwell upon while all heaven watched him closely?
He showed his power to create to those angels and to all the inhabitants of the heaven.
He showed the angels a man he created and formed in their own image, and in God's as well. But, he made man a little lower.

And in time, he took a lump of clay to make for Jesus Christ, a body...the scripture says..."a body hast thou prepared for me". And God let the Word of God dwell in that lump of clay. And by force of will and righteousness and truth and love, that Word made flesh, overcame all obstacles of the law of God. And so he rose by qualification to the most high throne of his Father. And he proved by force of will that his Father is indeed worthy to inhabit the most high throne and to be worshiepped by all for, is not the law of God that, Kind begets kind? And that is what Satan wishes to claim isn't so?

Legally, if the only begotten Son is proven worthy, then legally, and logically, that can only be due to his Father being worthy.
For, the Son obeyed the Father freely of his own will.

I think what many or not realizing is that when men change a word here or there, or a context. Then corruption of man enters in and evil naturally results. What a profound error occurs when men allow even a little "s" to appear in their supposed scriptures in the very first verse of what they deem should be the word of God, the Holy Bible. It can seem small and slight at first, if one is ignorant of what God is saying, and remaings so for thousands of years. But, before you know it men begin to then entertain whole worlds existing before history on this earth, worlds full of vile monsters, full of primitive and stupid creatures evolving on their own accidental way. Beasts become men in fantasy, instead of man being understood correctly as he that was created in the image of God. Ages of time in which nothing useful occurs, and in which things just steadly improve themselve accidentally are envisioned and consensified and politicized. Such rotted thinking arises out of lies inserted in the first verse of God's written word, by the "s:serpent", and more and more thereafter. And why have any changed the words? What, and why is there an axe being ground for?

#51 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 12:03 AM

Jesus is referred to as being separate from what was created - given that everything that was made was made through Him. And given that your "before" might be a nano-second, I hardly think you're making any grand point by insisting upon two time periods.


Well this is my whole point. The watery planet earth could have been created a nano-second before light was created on day 1, it could be multiple billion years. Neither view would contradict the bible. I didn't claim that it was any grand point.

#52 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:16 AM


Well this is my whole point. The watery planet earth could have been created a nano-second before light was created on day 1, it could be multiple billion years. Neither view would contradict the bible. I didn't claim that it was any grand point.

Then why the insistence that there is more to the creation account than the six days?

#53 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:20 AM

Then why the insistence that there is more to the creation account than the six days?


Just because sometimes YEC's seem to insist that their view is the only biblical view for those who take the wording of the bible seriously.

#54 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:07 PM

Just because sometimes YEC's seem to insist that their view is the only biblical view for those who take the wording of the bible seriously.

If you have compelling reasons why we should not accept all was created within six days, we'd like to hear it. Until such a time, we are perfectly justified upon insisting that the bible teaches six days of creation, ~6,000 years ago.

#55 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 July 2012 - 04:01 AM

The competing view is that days are "symbolic" and it's actually an attempt to harmonize it with the "billions of years" materialistic scientists claim. The later being actually a perspectivist view, meaning constructed from today, from earth and from the information and opinions dominant in main stream academia. A real objective view would be different.

#56 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:48 AM

Stripe,

I can think of no compelling reason to suppose that the angels of God were created during the six days of Genesis chapter one.

The main reason to think the creation of the heaven and the earth are not described as occuring in the six day period of days defined as consisting of one evening and one morning each are as follows...

1. The first two verses of Genesis specify three places, the heaven, the earth, and the deep.
2 The deep by definition is beneath and seperate from the heaven above it.
3. The earth is set down in the deep under manby waters but the heaven is not.
4. The deep is described as being a place of darkness but the heaven is not so described and has always been described as a place of light where God sits on his throne.
5. When God said, Let there be light it is contextually referring to the deep that was the only place that was immediately before described as that which was in darkness. But, "the heaven" is not similarily described.
6. The phrase "the heaven and the earth" of Genesis verse one is not the same as the phrase "heaven and earth" found in Exodus and elsewhere when referring specifically to "the six days"..
7. If it is reasoned that the heaven was not created until the second day, then the earth that is beneath heaven must then be reasoned as preceeding the existence of heaven above. Which lends to the satanic notion that darkness is that from out of which light is born, or, at the very least the satanic notion of yin/yang, wherein the darkness is thought to be required eternally.
8. There is no description of the creation of the heaven, nor the earth, nor the deep, nor the waters, given in Genesis, but the creation of our cosmos is carefully described, but is the lesser thing that lies beneath.
9. The firmament was not created until the second day and is named Heaven, but, that Heaven created on the second day is the place wherein the sun, moon, stars, and planets are placed on the fourth day.
10. The birds are created to fly in the firmament of the heaven on the fifth day.
11. We know that the sun, moon, planets, stars and sky are not ever described in scripture as the place called the heaven where God sits on his throne amid his holy angels. That being so, the light turned on in the deep is unrelated to the heaven where God sits on his most hight throne. That being so, proves that all the description of the six day labor of God is not related to the heaven of verse one.

It seems that you are also claiming that it is of no importance to know that the earth sat in the deep in darkness for a unspecified span of time.
And, it is evident that many people do not think the addition of the letter "s" in verse one in many texts is important either.
But, although it is not readily apparent as important to the casual reader I have perceived it to be very important because, most importantly, the earth was created to meet a legal requirement that proves that God knew all things before he began any creation whatsoever, and in that it is the means by which he legally resolves all debate in the courtroom of the temple in heaven.
Without the earth being former to the creation of angels and man, and yet, the foundational part of our universe that exists beneath the heaven of God's most high throne, then no argument can succeed in validating the worthiness of God to be God in a legal manner. It is apparent by the Holy Bible consisting of two testaments that the legality of these things are necessary to God's eternal plan.

#57 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

It indeed is disturbing that in all the debating by Christians I have observed it seems that most Christians are completely unaware of the issues involved.
For the unbelieving, debates about origins is merely a fantasy science thought experiment. As in, who cares which vainity surpasses another in the process of time.
But, for the believer of the holy scriptures of God found in the Holy Bible the issue is far deeper and greater than opinons of man regarding merely temporal natural sciences.

Satan didn't invent the satanic notions of evolutionism, naturalism, Hegelian dielectics, darwinism, fantasy lands before history, worlds of fabulous monsters, all for imagination sake. These things are direct attacks on the legalities of God's worthiness to be God.
Sure, God could simply destroy all things he dislikes, or have never allowed them to exist. That is easy and unremarkable for him to have done, is it not?
But, our God is not caught off gaurd by the evil that has come to pass. God invited it's possible existence into the worlds. God is not afraid of anything evil invented or surmised. The question that unbelievers invent are the very thing God has deigned to answer once and for all eternity. When God decided to debate he did so by establishing rules and those rules are the legalities of the courtroom in which all have their say, their moment of truth.

Jesus Christ is God's proof that he is worthy to be God and to sit on the most high throne.
Jesus Christ obtained the throne of his Father in a legal manner under the careful, diligent, discerning eye of the most wise of all God's creatures. One who must prove God wrong about something or he is proven a fool after all, and must die the death. That is, I speak of Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer, the sealer of the sum of all knowledge about natural things. Yet, blind concerning all spiritual truth.

Jesus Christ became a man who by his legal, and scientific genealogy, is the rightful heir to all things given to Adam as him being lord over.
Jesus Christ is the man who is the legal heir of the throne of Israel, by his legal genealogical relationship as a firstborn son and heir to David's throne.
Jesus Christ is the man who is the legal, rightful heir to the throne of heaven as the firstborn, and only begotten Son, of God, his Father.

And, to put as simply as I can, Jesus Christ is as it were, the seal of God set to the clay.
And, since he took the form of the lowest of all things, dirt, and has legally met all obligations of the law and now sits on the most high throne, on the right hand of his Father, as God over all things in the heavens and on earth, and beneath.

If Adam, either, did not exist as narrated in the book of Genesis, or if he was the son of a beast and not the son of God, then Jesus Christ has no legal claim to make.
Thus, it should be perceivable by all thinkers that, claiming Adam to be the son of a beast by evolutionary genealogies is blaspheme against the authority of Jesus Christ. And, if the blood of Christ is not pure than who can be saved by it? This is Satan's blasphemy which has been spread like ignorance among the foolish.

It behooves us Christians to be careful about compromise proffered as some intellectual prize. The evolution and naturalism fairytales are not accidents of nature anymore than are the things of which they fantasize origins about. They are a delusion designed for the deludable who purposefully decide not to retain the knowledge of God in their minds and hearts.

And why compromise? I've heard all the many versions of nonsense and at the core is nothing whatsoever. It looks good on tv, in cartoons and fancy digital virtual realities, but, its all really designed to decieve children if you step back a take a good look at the means of propogating the fairytales of Satan's devisings. What true scientist cares one iota about using cartoons to tell tales to little children? Who really invents monster stories for adults? Please. Time to grow up folks. What scientist thinks all things came out of nowhere at all, out of a minute speck of everthing? Can anyone say...David Copperfield! Abracadabra and poof...there you have all things growing accidentally into wonderous whatnots?

I just thought it important to try and shake up the sensibilities of some Christians who may have not noticed the point of the fairyfables of modern mathimythification.


#58 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:15 PM

It indeed is disturbing that in all the debating by Christians I have observed it seems that most Christians are completely unaware of the issues involved.For the unbelieving, debates about origins is merely a fantasy science thought experiment. As in, who cares which vainity surpasses another in the process of time. But, for the believer of the holy scriptures of God found in the Holy Bible the issue is far deeper and greater than opinons of man regarding merely temporal natural sciences. Satan didn't invent the satanic notions of evolutionism, naturalism, Hegelian dielectics, darwinism, fantasy lands before history, worlds of fabulous monsters, all for imagination sake. These things are direct attacks on the legalities of God's worthiness to be God...


Got to disagree slightly with you on that one. Evolutionism is a word with several meanings. Naturalism is ontologically limited, Don't know what exactly the problem with Hegelian dialectics is supposed to be and Darwinism itself could be seen as just a hypothesis.
But that the issue isn't really important for atheist I got certainly to disagree with.
In fact, it is something that's really on their nails. Not only can they tease Christians or Creationists with this. An atheist is really into trouble, if he can not conjure up an alternative towards theistic creation. Their guru Richard Dawkins himself says something in this regard , Darwin making it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". That's the reason they are so obsessed with evolutionary origins. If that falls they are in serious trouble concerning a consistent world view. They are already inconsistent in many ways, but if evolution by materialistic processes isn't plausible it's getting really hot for them.
  • JayShel likes this

#59 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:40 PM

I can think of no compelling reason to suppose that the angels of God were created during the six days of Genesis chapter one.


So?

1. The first two verses of Genesis specify three places, the heaven, the earth, and the deep.
2 The deep by definition is beneath and seperate from the heaven above it.
3. The earth is set down in the deep under manby waters but the heaven is not.
4. The deep is described as being a place of darkness but the heaven is not so described and has always been described as a place of light where God sits on his throne.
5. When God said, Let there be light it is contextually referring to the deep that was the only place that was immediately before described as that which was in darkness. But, "the heaven" is not similarily described.
6. The phrase "the heaven and the earth" of Genesis verse one is not the same as the phrase "heaven and earth" found in Exodus and elsewhere when referring specifically to "the six days"..
7. If it is reasoned that the heaven was not created until the second day, then the earth that is beneath heaven must then be reasoned as preceeding the existence of heaven above. Which lends to the satanic notion that darkness is that from out of which light is born, or, at the very least the satanic notion of yin/yang, wherein the darkness is thought to be required eternally.
8. There is no description of the creation of the heaven, nor the earth, nor the deep, nor the waters, given in Genesis, but the creation of our cosmos is carefully described, but is the lesser thing that lies beneath.
9. The firmament was not created until the second day and is named Heaven, but, that Heaven created on the second day is the place wherein the sun, moon, stars, and planets are placed on the fourth day.
10. The birds are created to fly in the firmament of the heaven on the fifth day.
11. We know that the sun, moon, planets, stars and sky are not ever described in scripture as the place called the heaven where God sits on his throne amid his holy angels. That being so, the light turned on in the deep is unrelated to the heaven where God sits on his most hight throne. That being so, proves that all the description of the six day labor of God is not related to the heaven of verse one.

How does this render "six days" impossible?

#60 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:39 PM

Then why the insistence that there is more to the creation account than the six days?

Because the bible says so. How many times do I have to repeat myself that the watery earth (erets meaning land OR earth) was created BEFORE the six days according to the bible, yet the land surface (erets meaning land OR earth) was created on day 3. This means that when Exodus is referring to the creation of the "ERETS" WITHIN the six days , its referring merely to LAND being created on day 3, not the watery earth created BEFORE day 1.


Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens (expanse above the waters, created on day 2) and the earth (erets = land, created on day 3 from the sea), the sea, and all that is in them

If you want to keep insisting that Exodus 20 is referring to the creation of the universe and the planet earth when it is referring to the creation of the expanse of the sky and the land created from the sea, then you are just ignoring both the context of Genesis 1, and the ignoring the meaning of the original Hebrew words. You keep insisting on more proof, the proof is in the Hebrew and in the wording of Genesis 1.

My view is NOT watering down the bible, its getting closer to the truth of the bible.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users