alphaparticle Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 26, 2015 I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Here is my contention with this verse in particular. At this point, the sun and earth weren't created. In view of that, what sense can be made from a reference to 'evening' and 'morning'? And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? I believe this creates profound difficulties for the reading of 'day' to be a 24 period as measured on earth on commonsense reading grounds. I don't think this is actually possible. This isn't a problem though if I take these days to be epochs of some sort. This leads me to my more speculative thought. 2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions. Back to Genesis Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. For an even more speculative thought, this could very meaningfully refer to recombination, the point at which atoms started to form in the universe and it became transparent, allowing for light to propagate. All this leads me to think that there is no necessary issue between the Genesis account, taken very seriously, and some modern scientific theories, not necessarily anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,993 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,691 Content Per Day: 11.77 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 26, 2015 Genesis chapter one states "In the beginning God created".There is no view here for evolution.Biblical creationism is the only system that answers the basic questions of life.Creationism and evolution are totally opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 Genesis chapter one states "In the beginning God created".There is no view here for evolution.Biblical creationism is the only system that answers the basic questions of life.Creationism and evolution are totally opposite. That doesn't respond to the content of the thread at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,993 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,691 Content Per Day: 11.77 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 26, 2015 Genesis chapter one states "In the beginning God created".There is no view here for evolution.Biblical creationism is the only system that answers the basic questions of life.Creationism and evolution are totally opposite. That doesn't respond to the content of the thread at all. "thoughts on creationism" is this not the OP?Those are my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 Genesis chapter one states "In the beginning God created".There is no view here for evolution.Biblical creationism is the only system that answers the basic questions of life.Creationism and evolution are totally opposite. That doesn't respond to the content of the thread at all. "thoughts on creationism" is this not the OP?Those are my thoughts. no,, the opening post contains my specific thoughts on the creation. The intention of the thread isn't gathering random general thoughts on creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,993 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,691 Content Per Day: 11.77 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 26, 2015 That is what the thread is titled. I gave my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie333 Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 15 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,236 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 673 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/24/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/18/1970 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If we can accept the opening verse...everything that follows should be even easier to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Hi Alpha, In Hebrew when yom is used in connection with ordinal numbers it is always "day" in the regular, ordinary sense. The word "day" or "yom" can be used to refer to non-24 hour days, but the Hebrew text always indicates when it is doing that. Hebrew is a very precise language, far more precise than English. Phrases like, "in that day" or "The Day of the Lord" are ways that yom is not used to refer to literal 24 hour days. The thing is, alpha... WE don't get to decide when the Bible is using "yom" in a non-literal sense. The Bible already does that for us. The reason the word "day" is such a problem is that you appear to view science as the infallible standard against which the Bible must be judged. In one sense, science is the object of your faith and you are trying to make the Bible conform to science. You are treating science as the authority and the Bible as subordinate to it. As long as you do that, you will constantly be running into problems trying to reconcile the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 1,292 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 26, 2015 I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Here is my contention with this verse in particular. At this point, the sun and earth weren't created. In view of that, what sense can be made from a reference to 'evening' and 'morning'? And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? I believe this creates profound difficulties for the reading of 'day' to be a 24 period as measured on earth on commonsense reading grounds. I don't think this is actually possible. This isn't a problem though if I take these days to be epochs of some sort. This leads me to my more speculative thought. 2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions. Back to Genesis Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. For an even more speculative thought, this could very meaningfully refer to recombination, the point at which atoms started to form in the universe and it became transparent, allowing for light to propagate. All this leads me to think that there is no necessary issue between the Genesis account, taken very seriously, and some modern scientific theories, not necessarily anyway. The story of Genesis has been written in a form which is both simple and complex, which together make it profound. It is not possible to read Genesis carefully without discovering that it is complex. One instance is what you have pointed out. The definitions that God gave to the Light and the Darkness. Which are introduced on the first day. Like you said the sun and moon had not been created, and neither had the earth appeared on the scene. It follows that whatever God created and named in those first days, before the appearance of the earth on the third day, is something special, something He would know about, and to our wonderful surprise God mentions these elements of creation, throughout the Bible, to give us an idea of what they are and what they do in creation. So far as the days are concerned, as posted by Shiloh, unless the Bible says so, the word day means day, and not an indiscriminate period. It is a word that is contextual, and if not, then on it's own just means a day, The Lord wrote in His law that the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, specifically because God made the earth in six days and commemorated the 7th. So it could not have been eons of time. God does not need eons of time to make things, the Psalmist says "He commanded and it stood fast." Neither has God chosen to use eons of time to create. His power is instant in the Gospel, there is no evolution in salvation, it is instant adoption to God. By pushing evolution into Christianity, the world is seeking to undermine faith in the immediate power and promises of God, and the speed of the word of God, not only to create but to pardon. The JW's were one of the first non christian organisations to suggest that day does not mean day, but a thousand years. The context of that text is talking about the patience of God, and not about time. Besides it is to God that time is so, and not to us. Rarely do we hear, that when God waits for our heart response, that one day is like a thousand years to Him, sadly at the same time we are quite happy to fiddle with the times in creation that diminish the image of Divinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alien224 Posted April 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 82 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,762 Content Per Day: 0.38 Reputation: 869 Days Won: 2 Joined: 08/09/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/24/1964 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Praying for you parti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts