Praise God indeed we don’t need a Theology PhD to be Christians and I’m not saying you need one to be a part of this discussion, because I don’t have one either.
I’m still interested to know what day you think man was created.
Lee
I’m not only a Christian but a woman in my late forties. Born and raised in a time when we were taught manners and respect.
You first insult me and quiet rudely dismiss me and yet you still desire to engage in conversation with me.
If you were my child you would have gotten two things. A clip over the ear and told to apologise.
It is not only good manners but the least I expect from a fellow brother/sister in Christ is a little respect.
I’m tired of having to put up with bad manners and to be told especially by the younger generation of today that I shouldn’t take offence and nothing was meant by this or that it’s just they way we communicate it’s OK.
I hacv a sincere heart and I didn’t mean you personally when I used the term “as a Christian” but as a general term. I already apologised. I really don’t feel like palying intellectual games or one up manship with anyone.
If you desire to find out more about Creation the websites I’ve mentioned not only give science evidence towards Creation they also have good Biblical teachings on DVD and Books on Creation, Genesis and the History of the Old Tesatment. I’ve offered this to you for your own research.
Maybe someone else here can answer your question about when mankind was created. Genesis is easy to read and requires little interpretation I would assume it is easy enough for you to work this out for yourself.
I’m not sure how I have disrespected you but if you feel I have, I apologise. I had to no intent to give you a hard time about anything. (I’m curious to know though how you think I am younger than you though).
On Genesis, I’m not sure it is so easy to understand. Genesis says that man was made after the earth was filled with all sorts of stuff. Genesis 2 says that the world was barren when man was made. That seems like a blatant contradiction if you want to say ‘what is said is what happened’. The Bible has all sorts of language that isn’t to be taken on face value. For example, when Jesus returns, will he actually get a metal rod and smash apart the nations like Psalm 2 says? I don’t think so. I don’t think the ‘what is said is what happened’ theological argument stacks up for Genesis either.
Lee
I’m not assuming you are younger but it is something I have found that the younger generation today accept being rude doesn’t matter (making an observation).
Give me a minute or two to look up some notes from my Gensis studies. I think this may have come up in our Bible Study at Church last year. I’ll be back to post my findings.
Lee
We didn’t go into this in my notes. Here is some of what our Bible Study leader had given us on Gensis as an overview.
Genesis is a plain narrative, written in simple language and is clear in meaning.
It does not have the charateristics of Hebrew poetry and no translation treats it as such.
It has little that can be thought of as symbolism.
The best way to interpret Genesis it not to. It is intended to mean what it says.
{My Bible Study leader added this about Chapter 2}
While some suggest that Chapter 2 is a separate and different creation story, it is simply an expansion and more detailed account of Chapter 1 dealing with the creation of man.]
Our notes are sparse compared to what we discussed. I remember we did talk about the order in which things were created at length. I didn’t write any notes on mankind. I just noted vegetation was created on day 3 providing food for all the animlas because all creatures at that point in creation only ate vegetation. I also note the following verse as proof of this.
GE 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
To think I’ve probably read this verse many time in my Christian life and only last year realised the Bible actually points this out. I was surprised by this and delighted.
That is all I have for Genesis chapters 1 & 2. Too busy taking it in to make a lot of notes I have much more on the later chapters.
I agree that Gen 2 is another way of understanding the creation of man. But if you think that Gen 1 unambiguously points to creation via 6, 24hr periods, that can’t wash. Gen 1 says that man was made on the 6th day after plants were made on day 3. Gen 2 says that man was made before plants (ie the earth was barren). It is a logical contradiction and both can only be true if the order of events is a theological construction to make a point, which is what I think it is, rather than a reality that can be proven by science.
I remember this coming up in our Bible Study. However I have not made any notes on how we resolved this.
I have gone back and re-read the verses on this. I’m using an NIV. OK I have these verses in quotes below for your reference.
I do remember we were more concerned about how the vegetation was watered. We came to the conclusion that they were watered through a mist of water that rose from the ground.
As for the verse which says there was no vegetation before God created man in Gen 2:5. I see that persoanlly as a comment that at this point (whenever this was) there was no vegetation because there was no man to WORK the ground and there was NO Rain either. Note in verse 6 the streams came up and watered the whole surface. So one of 2 have been resolved. What happened next? Did God create man straight away? There is no timing given to us as to when the streams came on the Earth or when God made man. Just that they did. Did God wait until this was completed? We do not know.
There is no timing to these events. So we can’t say exactly what happened here. If water was provided then vegetation could have been provided for the animals and mankind. I don’t know but I do know here there is no word here indicating timing like in Gen 1 where you get the 3rd day, the 5th day etc. So I don’t worry about it. We are not given that detail.
When I say I choose to believe God’s Word, that is what I do. I know in GEN 1, I have timing of events but in Gen 2 I don’t and I don’t have ALL the details here either. Just because in Gen verses 5-7 vegetation is not mentioned doesn’t mean it wasn’t there either. All we can actually say is we don’t know. However, in Gen 1:29 God says he gave every green plant (not tree but green plants which could be just grasses) to all the creatures to eat. If God said He did, then He did and that is good enough for me. I’d love to have the exact detailed explaination but I don’t get it here so I just ahve to accept what I do get and go with that.
Sometimes we have to take only what we are given. I’m not sure why the Bible doesn’t give us all the intricate details we crave so we can be absolutely 100% sure. However you have made an assumption the vegetation was not there. So do you think that is a correct way to interpret these verses? Do you think you may have added detail we don’t have? I’m sincere in asking these questions not being a smarty pants (as my niece would say). I hope you are able to resolve this to your own satisfaction.
Cheers
Milica
GE 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground—7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
GE 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
GE 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
You make a good point that Gen 2 doesn’t give us a timing of events and I previously hadn’t considered that the streams coming up might lead to vegetation before God created man.
I thought this book I had on Creation was still out on loan but my hubby found it for me.
It is from Creation International Ministries and you can get a copy of it at Koorong.
The Book is called “The Creation Answers Book”, authors/contributors are Don Batten, David Catchpole, Jonathan Sarfati & Carl Wieland.
Here is a small excerpt answering the following question:-
Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts of creation, so why should we beleive Genesis 1 as history?
Genesis chapters One and Two are not different accounts of creation and they are not contradictory. Genesis 1 deals with the creation of everything, the universe, the ‘big picture’ (see Genesis 1:31-2:4a). Genesis 2 recaps the creation of man and woman, providing details not provided in the first chapter and particularly their situation in the special garden God prepared for them. Chapter 2 is not another creation account: there is no mention of the creation of the earth, sun, moon stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping things, etc.
Some cite an apparent difference in order of creation between chapters one and two, claiming a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9, which in some English translations seems as though they came into being after Adam, supposedly contradicting the order in Genesis 1 (plants on Day 3, people on Day 6).
But Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct importance to Adam and Eve and the garden, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not plants in general. These events relate to God creating the garden, not creation in general.
Hopefully this is a better explaination than the one I gave in an earlier posting.
I also wanted to say I originally got into finding out about Creation vs Evolution because my kids and (nephew & niece) were challenged by this when they were at school (now grown up). As a Christian parent you want to be able to say more than “it’s in the Bible so you should just believe it”. Through the Creation Minsitries International material I have been able to help them understand God’s Word in regards to Creation and give them a better understanding of secular Science as well. I know with my kids and my brother’s kids they have learned that you can’t jsut take what the secular world boldly tells you as fact on face value. If you dig around and research what they say you will find they often are making something fact that hasn’t been proven. Just like the Bible says be a good Berean and check out any Christian teaching against the scriptures, so you should check out secular teaching as well.
I’m not sure why the Bible doesn’t give us all the intricate details we crave so we can be absolutely 100% sure.
It occurs to me that we need to keep in mind that the Bible was not just written for those of us who are alive at the start of the 21st century. Today we talk about geological processes and scientific concepts that would have been totally unknown ( in terms of current terminologies ) for the past several thousand years. So any “intricate details” couched in scientific language etc ( that we now comprehend in 2009 ) would have been meaningless if placed in “Genesis” ( by Moses or whoever ) for about the next 3,500 years - until time arrives at the last few centuries when modern technologies, scientific knowledge and understanding have progressed.
I’m not sure the approach of the quote you gave is consistent with a ‘what you see is what you get’ approach of Gen 1. If what they said is true then why have begin Gen 2 with no man and then make one, if it has already occurred in Gen 1? The language it uses 2:4 is very similar to Gen 1:1 too.
I have no problem with what they said but I don’t think it is an adequate explanation to overcome the contradiction inherent in a ‘what you see is what you get’ approach to Gen 1.
I’m not sure why the Bible doesn’t give us all the intricate details we crave so we can be absolutely 100% sure.
It occurs to me that we need to keep in mind that the Bible was not just written for those of us who are alive at the start of the 21st century. Today we talk about geological processes and scientific concepts that would have been totally unknown ( in terms of current terminologies ) for the past several thousand years. So any “intricate details” couched in scientific language etc ( that we now comprehend in 2009 ) would have been meaningless if placed in “Genesis” ( by Moses or whoever ) for about the next 3,500 years - until time arrives at the last few centuries when modern technologies, scientific knowledge and understanding have progressed.
Kevin
I did not say “I don’t know why the Bible doesn’t give us Scientific or technological PROOF”. I said intricate details, meaning MORE INFORMATION about an event or even about a person. Often we get only a few verses like this verse in Jude this is all we get the Book of Enoch is not available to find out more.
JUDE 1:14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Why do people insist on reading into other people’s posts what they did not say? Please ask if you are not sure about what I meant or said, don’t just make assumptions.
If you wanted to make your comment then sure do so but don’t misquote me. You can made your point without taking part of my previous post out of context. It really bugs me when people do that.
I’m not sure the approach of the quote you gave is consistent with a ‘what you see is what you get’ approach of Gen 1. If what they said is true then why have begin Gen 2 with no man and then make one, if it has already occurred in Gen 1? The language it uses 2:4 is very similar to Gen 1:1 too.
I have no problem with what they said but I don’t think it is an adequate explanation to overcome the contradiction inherent in a ‘what you see is what you get’ approach to Gen 1.
Lee
All I can say is I’ve given you all I’ve got (happy to do so). Not sure what you mean by “what you see is what you get?”.
Anyway it’s up to you to spend time in prayer and meditation over the Lord’s Word to come to your own knowledge and understanding (I’m not saying you are not doing this already). It’s not me (not taking any credit) but the Holy Spirit that reveals God’s Word to His children. Saying a little prayer for you to get the information/knowledge you require.
I really, really, really can’t understand why any Christian would want a literal meaning to the Genesis story of creation.
The Bible and the Anglican Articles of Religion 1562 make it quite clear that God is out of this world, undefinable, cannot be seen and certainly no gender is involved. So why should God be able or Bothered to detail how He made us and the Cosmos?
Coca Cola will never divulge it’s secret formulae, my aunt Gerty will never disclose her recipe for Pumpkin Scones ( she’s dead anyway) and Delilah would never let on that she used cocaine to give her the Gloss and Smile that led her to seduce Sampson. The real issue is to use the brains and genes that God gave us by evolution. Get real!
All I can say is I’ve given you all I’ve got (happy to do so). Not sure what you mean by “what you see is what you get?”.
Thanks for all the info.
When I say ‘what you see is what you get’, I mean a literalistic interpretation ie God made the world in 6, 24hr days some 6 000 - 10 000 years ago and Gen 1 can be verified with science. It means understanding Gen 1 - 11 as bare bones history with no poetry or allegorical influence, so what you see in Gen 1 is exactly as it happened. It is the approach of Young Earth Creation Scientists, Answers in Genesis, etc.
Doug, God revealed to us how he created the world because it is very relevant to the gospel. If the world was created as we see it today then sin is meaningless and we have no need for a creator. But God created the world perfect, and humanity corrupted it. The world was without death, until we brought it into the world. God tells us how he made the world so that we might believe in his son.
All I can say is I’ve given you all I’ve got (happy to do so). Not sure what you mean by “what you see is what you get?”.
Thanks for all the info.
When I say ‘what you see is what you get’, I mean a literalistic interpretation ie God made the world in 6, 24hr days some 6 000 - 10 000 years ago and Gen 1 can be verified with science. It means understanding Gen 1 - 11 as bare bones history with no poetry or allegorical influence, so what you see in Gen 1 is exactly as it happened. It is the approach of Young Earth Creation Scientists, Answers in Genesis, etc.
We know that carbon dating and other methods of dating the Earth and archelogical finds have their flaws. So I’m not going to decredit the Bible based on flawed science.
However I also am not sure how long each day of the Creation was? I put it in the can’t be proved and the Bible doesn’t say catergory.
Too tired at the moment, a hard few days as work. I’ll leave it there.
We know that carbon dating and other methods of dating the Earth and archelogical finds have their flaws. So I’m not going to decredit the Bible based on flawed science.
However I also am not sure how long each day of the Creation was
Isn’t that called ‘hedging your bets’ ? I’m sure that your oft quoted Creation International Ministries would insist on all of us accepting six 24 literal hour days. That is why they apparently agree with this :
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus {b}came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC{/b},
We know that carbon dating and other methods of dating the Earth and archelogical finds have their flaws. So I’m not going to decredit the Bible based on flawed science.
However I also am not sure how long each day of the Creation was
Isn’t that called ‘hedging your bets’ ? I’m sure that your oft quoted Creation International Ministries would insist on all of us accepting six 24 literal hour days. That is why they apparently agree with this :
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus {b}came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC{/b},
Kevin
No in all honesty I’m not hedging my bets. I’ve chosen not to say things like each day in Genesis 1 was definitely 24 hours long because the Bible doesn’t tell me this information. For me it’s a matter of not adding to the Bible. I can’t do that.
I’m happy to use external proof to the Bible if it is true fact and totally proven. As I don’t blindly accept scientific knowledge as true on face value I also do not then accept that the formation of the world happened over hundreds of thousands of years either. I ahve a problem with Carbon Dating I won’t go into this now.
So I don’t know and I won’t make something up. I don’t have all the answers but I can still accept that God can do it in 6 x 24 hour periods if He desires. There are no limitations on God. My inability to wrap my human mind around some things in the Bible doesn’t make it not true or not able to happen.
So I just accept God made the Earth, the Universe and everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
The Bible tells us we will not know it all here on Earth. When we are with the Lord ‘face to face’ then I will know it clearly, I will have the full picture. Until then I have to FAITH.
1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
In today’s “Daily Telegraph” we have this article :
Cave work sheds light on the past as the Orient Cave re-opens
By Malcolm Holland From : “The Daily Telegraph” August 21, 2009
JAMES Wiburd and Jack Edwards would no doubt be be very proud. The two gentleman explorers who discovered and named Jenolan Caves’ most spectacular section in 1904 believed it to be the finest example of its kind in the world.
That stunning beauty was revealed in all its glory yesterday when 340 million-year-old The Orient Cave was re-opened with new walkways and lighting.
The walkways will make subterranean sightseeing safer and easier for the 230,000 people who visit the cave each year….......
Now here’s my problem. What do I say to scientists and those 230,000 annual visitors to the Orient Cave about Christianity ?
Do I start off by saying that actually the world was created only about 6,000 of our years ago - and therefore all these statements and research by the worldwide scientific community ( who use common dating and other methods ) are totally wrong - and all those scientists etc are off their tree and don’t know what they’re talking about ?
Because that is the type of argument that you will get from organisations such as Creation International Ministries - just troll through their many pages of material to see their treatment of dissenting views.
I agree that we certainly don’t know all the ‘answers’ - but by some insisting on LIMITING God to ONLY using 6 ( of our ) literal days to create the universe certainly seems to limit their debate with non Christians - who, by the way, we are seeking to confront with the claims of Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour - rather than trying to win some argument about how old the Earth is.
Do I start off by saying that actually the world was created only about 6,000 of our years ago - and therefore all these statements and research by the worldwide scientific community ( who use common dating and other methods ) are totally wrong - and all those scientists etc are off their tree and don’t know what they’re talking about ?
Kevin
You have the webiste link to Creation Ministries International. Please use this link and do the research yourself.
I am not going to regurgitate what these scientist have to say about geological age and methodology used by geologists and scientists when it comes to how old various rock formations are or are not.
If I gave you some spiritual teaching I would expect you go and look at the scriptures for yourself and see if it is true.
AC 17:10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
The best way for you to get a handle on this for yourself is to look at the scientific teachings on this for yourself and weigh that against what is presented by the Creation Scientists.
There are two reasons why I am asking you to go and do the reading and research for yourself.
First, I am not well and very tired. I have a chronic illness and that wipes me out. In the past I could easily do academic reading and summarise it and engage in long discussions. Not so these days. I have at least given you where you can look further into this and that is all I can provide at the moment.
Second, as I have been a TAFE and Adult Education teacher I know that I can’t do all the work for my students. I need to let them do some exercises or research and answer questions for themselves. This way they get a better appreciation and deeper understanding for what I am teaching them. So I ask you to do your own research on this. I will pray for the Lord to enable you to find the answers you seek.
I am sorry to hear that you are ill - I have known folk with chronic illnesses and realise how exhausting and tiring things can become at times.
Regarding research - I have indeed already “researched” these topics for several decades now - and have indeed checked out many of the “young Earth” sites - I just don’t agree with their conclusions and their total insistence that if anyone disagrees with them then it is they who are in error.
I am happy just to leave it there - as these topics tend to end up just going in circles - as has happened in the past on the Anglican Media forums. I hope you feel better soon.
Cheers, Kevin
PS I also just wanted to add that - although I believe in an “old age” for the creation of the world and the universe - I do not believe in the theory of evolution. As an individual, I guess I’m in a separate category after all ;)
Thanks Kevin for your understanding. I’m just about to take a much needed afternoon nap so I can make it to a Church function after dinner tonight.
God Bless you and may He bring you to a full understanding of His Word. Amen
We are all on a journey in coming to an understanding of God’s Word. It starts with Jesus and salvation and one day will end with all of us in Heaven together Praising God. Looking forward to the day we are all together and have all the knowledge and understanding we still crave for here on Earth. Until then we keep going forward one step at a time.
Kevin, if you don’t believe in evolution then you do believe death is a punishment for sin? If so then us nasty creationists have no real issue with you! :)
However evolutionists are going to think you’re being mighty selectionist and inconsistent, as will many Christians.
If you’ve already read all the arguments I won’t say much more. But I will try to explain how I see the problems with dating methods.
Dating methods rely on science only partially for the results they give. There is no way to directly observe or measure age or dates. What we can measure is: distances (ex, for stars), ratios of elements (for radiometric dating) and numbers of things (sediment layers or tree rings). Maybe we can measure more for a couple of obscure methods, but the main dating methods rely on those data points.
How do we turn them into ages or dates? We have to interpret them with algorithms, which must be calibrated somehow. For radiometric dating we have to assume that the current rate of decay is a constant (a fairly good assumption, though there is some research that suggests in weird situations the rates can change, like if the electron shells are removed) and that there was no daughter isotope present to begin with (a pretty poor assumption if you believe God could create the world however he likes.) To interpret layers we must assume that the current rate of sedimentation is also constant and that there is no possible mechanism which would put down layers faster, a pretty poor assumption given that we’ve often observed faster sedimentation happening. For the stars we have to assume that the light emitted from the star itself, and that God didn’t create it directly, and there’s no reason why he couldn’t (Genesis does say God created light!) There are so many assumptions here, and most of them assume God doesn’t intervene in the world, and that he didn’t create it specially. As a Christian there’s no reason why I should accept these assumptions.
And finally, even if all these assumptions were correct, there is no way to independently calibrate a method, they can only be calibrated from other methods. It’s very circular. We can calibrate C14 dating from history, but C14 stops being useful at about 60k years, and the methods that can measure long ages don’t give accurate results at such short times.
[null]Catholics File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
[null]Catholic Groups File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
RSS Feed