Questions about Genesis

[bobazilla]

Genesis says God created all of Creation in 6 days, this led me to some random thoughts, and I wonder what others think of the following questions:

If god created the pieces of creation in some type of sequential order, does that mean God is subjected to time? Does he have to follow a linear time like the rest of us? Is there something about creation that requires one piece to be "built" before others can be added?

Why did he create creation in pieces? Why not just do it all in one grand flash of creation? Why one piece after another? There was noone there to see this, so was it just for his own satisfaction? (We only have God's word he did it in 6 days, filtered through Moses.)

If God is subject to some type of linear time, then what did he do before the creation of the universe?

Thanks in advance....
Bobazilla:tongue:

[Bald Ape]

Theistic reply (IIRC): God created in 6 days to serve as a model to mankind that it is good to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th day.

[bobazilla]

But why couldn't God just say it? Why an example?

Also, why 6 days of work and one day off? Why not 10 & 2? Or 1 & 1, or any other combination of work days and days off?

Is it a case of "Cause I said so!" or because the underlying culture had settled on 7 days as a "week" and wrote the myth to fit what the culture was already doing?

Also, (I like alsos), if you are religious and only work 5 days a week are you sinning? Or what about the relaxed attitude most people have now about working on the Sabbath (whatever day that is)? Are they sinning too?

These questions must drive HR departments nuts all around the world.

But anyway....I'm still curious....did God have to use linear time like us other mere mortals to create creation? Could he do it all at once? Is creation an act that requires rest afterwards?

Bobazilla

[TheFiveSolas]

bob,
I would have to say that the temporal order of God's creation was chosen by Him so that we could derive certain theological inferences from it.

For example, many ancient cultures worshipped the Sun as being the source of life since its light is necessary for warmth and growth. God's creation of light prior to the creation of the Sun militates against such a view. It keeps in focus the fact that God is the source of light and therefore life.

[TheFiveSolas]

bob,
Of course God could have created everything all at once. However, it pleased Him to do it in six days.

With regards to God's resting, it was not because He was tired. Rather, it was akin to what a lawyer does when he finishes arguing his side of the case. He rests his case. God finished His acts of creation, therefore He rested from (i.e., finished) creating, took a step back, examined His handiwork and said, "its very good."

[bobazilla]

Today @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51215#post51215)
Bald Ape:

Theistic reply (IIRC): God created in 6 days to serve as a model to mankind that it is good to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th day.


The problem with this is Adam & Eve had no need of a 6 day work week. They were in an earthly paradise that God created just for them. They weren't toiling or suffering (and were thus resting 7 days a week). It wasn't until after the fall that a 6-day work week was required.

So, if God did creation in 6 days and rested on the 7th as a "model" for humanity, then he would have to know that Adam & Eve (and thus humanity) were going to FALL. So it means that God setup A&E (and thus humanity) for failure.

:huh:

[Dr.GH]

It seems to me that the emphasis in Genesis 1-3 is a mixed text.

For the 6 day of labor, one day rest issue, we need only look to ther second Babylonian exile.

This was a very important means to keep the "people" separate from others.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52055#post52055)
Dr.GH:
It seems to me that the emphasis in Genesis 1-3 is a mixed text.What do you mean by mixed text?

For the 6 day of labor, one day rest issue, we need only look to ther second Babylonian exile.

This was a very important means to keep the "people" separate from others. What do you also mean by this?

[bobazilla]

I'm still wondering about why God would set a week of 6 days of work and one day off as a "model" for mankind to live by, when Adam & Eve wouldn't need that model until after the fall.

[Sher]

Since we are starting to just have an inkling of the interrelationships between man/beast/earth/universe, not to mention the illogical decision to question God, the very question in the o.p. is a bit strained to answer. However, I will make a small attempt to answer, if I may. God is not constrained by time nor space. However, we are. God *may* have done this with the foreknowledge that it would be useful for us as a guideline; He *may* have done this because there was physical/spiritual need for it to be that way; He *may* have done it that way simply because He wanted to stop and reflect each evening on what was good [complete] ... or perhaps all three ... or d. none of the above. (Ours is not to question why ...)

We know that He isn't subject to linear time, because it was "In the beginning ... ", the beginning of all time/space/matter ... remember that God is spirit ... and one day is as a thousand years (meaning that He is beyond time ... eternal).

Second guessing God isn't the point ... obedience is. The facinating thing is the understanding that God established not only the world, but also the ways to relate to it as well. The understanding of Light, opposed to sun worship, as FiveSolas mentioned ... also the beginning of a timeline for us to follow to create a calendar ... the earth rotating so we have period of work and period of rest ... etc. It is a great thing to take scripture and revisit it ... breaking it down to look beyond the history to what God is revealing to us for today.... not outdated information but valid, relevant things for us to do and follow. God provides us with everything we could possibly need ... and many of the things we didn't know we needed... and often don't deserve. He is truly amazing.

[bobazilla]

"God is not constrained by time nor space. However, we are. God *may* have done this with the foreknowledge that it would be useful for us as a guideline; He *may* have done this because there was physical/spiritual need for it to be that way; He *may* have done it that way simply because He wanted to stop and reflect each evening on what was good [complete] ... or perhaps all three ... or d. none of the above. (Ours is not to question why ...)"

God is not constrained by time and space, in other words he's fully cognizant of everything in every time, he HAS to know what's going to happen to his creation. What physical/spiritual need could such a being have for setting such an arbitrary interval?

I can see it now: God goes home after a busy day creating the universe. He kicks back, lights a pipe, and reflects on things. "Hmmm, I think tomorrow I'll make wildebeest and some insects that live on just one tree in the Amazon", and nods off in front of the fireplace.

God (by your terms) created this incredible amazing universe and gave us incredible amazing brains to observe and wonder about the universe. But we can't question he/she/it???? It's not ours to? What kind of setup is that? It's basically the Adam/Eve parable all over again. Here ya go....check out this lovely fruit, but don't touch it, no matter what the serpent says.

"We know that He isn't subject to linear time, because it was "In the beginning ... ", the beginning of all time/space/matter ... remember that God is spirit ... and one day is as a thousand years (meaning that He is beyond time ... eternal)."

If God somehow exists out of normal time then he must be able to see all of time. If so, he knew that mankind would fall, he knew he would have to send his son (I keeping this just to Christian mythology) to correct the first mistake. He knew that one day we'd be having this conversation. Such an idea means there is no free will, there is no happenstance, it was all preordained to doom a sizable portion of humanity to hell. I can and I will question the morality and "goodness" of such a being.

You can't have it both ways....either God knew what was going to happen, thus dooming humanity to torment, or he doesn't know and he lied to humanity.

"Second guessing God isn't the point ... obedience is. The facinating thing is the understanding that God established not only the world, but also the ways to relate to it as well. The understanding of Light, opposed to sun worship, as FiveSolas mentioned ... also the beginning of a timeline for us to follow to create a calendar ... the earth rotating so we have period of work and period of rest ... etc. It is a great thing to take scripture and revisit it ... breaking it down to look beyond the history to what God is revealing to us for today.... not outdated information but valid, relevant things for us to do and follow. God provides us with everything we could possibly need ... and many of the things we didn't know we needed... and often don't deserve. He is truly amazing."

So god sets the rules, god made it impossible for most people (his crowning acheievement!) to join him in everlasting life, and has to kill his own son to make things right. To receive the proper encoded message I have to read and understand one 2000+ year old document and it'll just come to me? If god really cared about his creation, he wouldn't have created the universe I live in. Why fool such a huge proportion of his creation!!! Such a being deserves neither obedience or respect.

Bobazilla

P.S. I still don't understand why Adam & Eve need a 6-day work week! I got lots of *may*s, but no answers.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
bobazilla:

I'm still wondering about why God would set a week of 6 days of work and one day off as a "model" for mankind to live by, when Adam & Eve wouldn't need that model until after the fall. The best answer to this is the fact it just was. That God created the world in 6 days, U2's Bono seems to think it was 7, and that he rested is not an indication of weakness nor inability to do all in a single moment, but rather it may be indicative of the care in which he sought to do it.

I feel such questioning isn't really worth dealing with from a perspective of faliability. It certainly opens itself up to midrash, but to be blunt, the answer in the end is, "Its how He wanted to do it."

(*psst* The people who wrote it may not have had the concept of a god that could work such miracles instanteously either)

[Warcraft3]

bobazilla:

"God (by your terms) created this incredible amazing universe and gave us incredible amazing brains to observe and wonder about the universe. But we can't question he/she/it???? It's not ours to? What kind of setup is that? It's basically the Adam/Eve parable all over again. Here ya go....check out this lovely fruit, but don't touch it, no matter what the serpent says."

There is nothing wrong with asking the question, depending on the purpose of asking. If you are questioning God in an effort to truly understand Him more, then its fine to question. If you are questioning God because you have doubt or confusion about something and you would like some assurance, then that also is a situation where questioning is fine. Only when you question God in a confrontational or prideful/selfish manner does the questioning become wrong. Basically its the motive and attitude behind the questioning that determines whether its "good" or "bad".

:rockon:

[Warcraft3]

bobazilla:

"The problem with this is Adam & Eve had no need of a 6 day work week. They were in an earthly paradise that God created just for them. They weren't toiling or suffering (and were thus resting 7 days a week). It wasn't until after the fall that a 6-day work week was required."

From an OEC viewpoint Adam and Eve did indeed experience toil and suffereing in the garden, although in a somewhat limited fashion. We believe that, although they were in a protected environment which was already prepared for them, they did have to work to keep the garden a garden. I seem to remember God telling Eve that He would greatly "increase" her suffering (after the fall), not "introduce" her suffering. So our viewpoint is yes they did work and suffer in the Garden.

:cir:

[Pilgrim]

Framework Hypothesis anyone?

[Warcraft3]

Pilgrim:

"Framework Hypothesis anyone?"

There dont seem to be many Framework or OEC people in this forum (or maybr i just havent noticed yet), but I hope more join up. The framework view struck me as odd at first, until I read up on it a little and I must say they make some very good and interesting points about the text. Although ultimately I dont take that position, I did find their arguments to be quite solid.

:em7:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Pilgrim:

Framework Hypothesis anyone? Do you mean the poetical structure of the story?
Day 1 -> Day 4
Day 2 -> Day 5
Day 3 -> Day 6

[Pilgrim]

Jimmy, yes. And the idea that it conveys the Hebraic concept of both God's creativity and order in things.

As you may have guessed, I don't read Genesis literally or as a Science Textbook.

[bobazilla]

The story (or stories?) of Creation is not a logical story and does not fit into the reality I inhabit. How is it possible to maintain faith against the reality of the universe?

The universe is constructed in such a way that everything about it points to a very ancient existence, yet the core of the faith says something radically different from this. So how can anyone reasonably justify maintaining their faith against that reality.

I think there are two "legitimate" avenues at this point. You either become a non-believer or become an ardent YEC type, any other choice is a cop-out.

It's why am asking the question.....are believers "copping out" in their faith when they accept the universe as it is. Is Socrates right on this point, that any "Christian" who does not accept the biblical story of Creation is a backslider and reprobate and not truly a Christian?

I think he sees this point more clearly than anyone.

You should either believe totally and completely with absolute faith in God and Creation or you should not believe at all. Any other option is ultimately bearing "false witness" to yourself.

I am not now a believer, but I did used to be. And it was questions, such as the ones I asked at the start of this thread, that led me to doubt my faith and led me to be a non-believer.

And back to my original question, vague answers that I don't have the authority to Question god, but that he just is and just did what he did is not an answer at all.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
bobazilla:
I think there are two "legitimate" avenues at this point. You either become a non-believer or become an ardent YEC type, any other choice is a cop-out.This makes a strong presumption. That man at the time of the writing could understand quantum physics. Not very likely. Is it not possible God created a model for man to atleast understand?

It's why am asking the question.....are believers "copping out" in their faith when they accept the universe as it is. Is Socrates right on this point, that any "Christian" who does not accept the biblical story of Creation is a backslider and reprobate and not truly a Christian?Socretes right? That's a laugh.

You should either believe totally and completely with absolute faith in God and Creation or you should not believe at all. Any other option is ultimately bearing "false witness" to yourself.There one key to Christianity, the Resurrection. If that happened, then who cares if the First Story of Creation isn't exactly on par? If Jesus resurrected, he's part of God.


And back to my original question, vague answers that I don't have the authority to Question god, but that he just is and just did what he did is not an answer at all. Hey, I'm on your side of the argument. I just think it doesn't get very far. Its got too much wiggle room.

[Socrates]

Pilgrim:

Framework Hypothesis anyone?

Steadele:There dont seem to be many Framework or OEC people in this forum (or maybr i just havent noticed yet), but I hope more join up. The framework view struck me as odd at first, until I read up on it a little and I must say they make some very good and interesting points about the text. Although ultimately I dont take that position, I did find their arguments to be quite solid.There is a debate going on right now at » Gym » Boxing Ring » Young Earth Creationism (Socrates versus JohnRansom), and people can comment at » Gym » Arena » Young Earth Creationism (Socrates versus JohnRanson) commentary. Since both of us accept Biblical inerrancy and thus agreed to the debate with that premise, trolling by the likes of the vexatious Gamble about whether the Bible is inerrant doesn't belong.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:Socretes right? That's a laugh.Not only can't he spell my TWName right, I have caught Jimmy has been caught out on several outright lying smears, e.g. his claims that Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible teaches the inferiority of negroes (for my demolitions of these claims , see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=47598#post47598 and www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53347#post53347).

Jimmy has shown that he is not a person to be trusted, because to this bigoted anti-Christian, any means to smear Christianity or the Bible are OK. Furthermore, I intend to hold his feet to the fire on these two claims unless he unconditionally surrenders.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Yesterday @ 11:59 AM steadele:

bobazilla:

"The problem with this is Adam & Eve had no need of a 6 day work week. They were in an earthly paradise that God created just for them. They weren't toiling or suffering (and were thus resting 7 days a week). It wasn't until after the fall that a 6-day work week was required."

From an OEC viewpoint Adam and Eve did indeed experience toil and suffereing in the garden, although in a somewhat limited fashion. We believe that, although they were in a protected environment which was already prepared for them, they did have to work to keep the garden a garden. I seem to remember God telling Eve that He would greatly "increase" her suffering (after the fall), not "introduce" her suffering. So our viewpoint is yes they did work and suffer in the Garden.

Actually, except for the "suffering" aspect, even YECs who read the Scripture believe that Adam and Eve had work to do, and not just in Eden:



Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(Note that the Hebrew word translated 'replenish' does not have the same "plenish again" conception that the English word implies; there is no implied "again" involved. But that's a different thread.)

Note that this command was given to A&E before the whole Serpent and fruit episode (not just on the basis of being in Chapter 1, whereas the fruit episode is Chapter 3; this command occurs before God declares the whole of Creation to be very good, and that by definition was before The Fall). The concept behind "having dominion" is not just that Man is inherently superior to the animals, but rather that he is God's steward over the earth, and that as a steward he must take care of it. God did not make us to just sit around and contemplate our navels (assuming that A&E even had such, which of course they didn't).

The idea that work is a result of sin (i.e., that work only came about after The Fall) is as loopy as Augustine's "sex equals sin" idea (and note that the same verse destroys both, as A&E are here commanded to be fruitful and multiply, as well as given tasks to do). The "garden eastward in Eden" was given to A&E as a home, but they were not to just lounge about there and take everything easy, they had work to do that covered the whole earth.

The (speaking of which, I need a job) Curtmudgeon

[Sher]

04-04-2003 @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
bobazilla:

The story (or stories?) of Creation is not a logical story and does not fit into the reality I inhabit. How is it possible to maintain faith against the reality of the universe?But the question this begs is "what reality do you inhabit?". The "reality" of what mankind's science guesses it to be, or the reality (aka truth) that the Earth was formed fully functional and ready for inhabitance? That there is a supernatural Creator who fashioned things as they needed to be fashioned. Who is man to dictate what laws should be followed?
The universe is constructed in such a way that everything about it points to a very ancient existence, yet the core of the faith says something radically different from this. So how can anyone reasonably justify maintaining their faith against that reality.Again, by realizing that mankind is fallible and that the interpretations are usually perpetuated by those who are have a bias against Creation a priori because of what it represents ... a need for a Creator. Even those who have no intention to deceive, build their science on the foundation of the ones that came before. And as such, the biases, assumptions, and errors are passed from the first one to the next, and so on. Even if you do not recognize this, perhaps you should actually question why you should believe that because some man, a scientist who learned from other scientist (directly or indirectly) says that if you see X, then it is Y, is operating in the realms of reality. What makes their observations actual truth? They form ideas of what they believe to be truth, and experiment to either disprove or prove their ideas. But the proofs are only subjective to the theories ... meaning if the whole premise of what they are looking for is false, even if they "prove" it ... they have only confimred falsehood.

For example: I perpetuate some seemingly plausible "scientific" theory (assumed to be false by us for this example). I establish a list of things that should be seen somewhere or another if this theory were "true". I make it very convincing in relation to what is observable, and give fancy names to that which isn't observable, outlining reasons for why it can't be found. I publish my theory and I am ridiculed (or not) for it. Others follow my work and start seeing "proofs" that couldashouldawoulda happened. Fast forward X# of years and experiments ... and the theory becomes science "fact". However, it is still the same, if not new and improved, falsehood that we began with. How can this happen? Because it was built on faulty assumptions and lack of reality/truth. No amount of experimentation and paper-publishing should make a lie "the truth" to the people ... but unfortunately, it does. Whether by the "men's club" mentality of ostracizing and discriminating against those with valid opposing viewpoints, or by the lack of education of the public to fight the self-coined words and doublespeak that causes confusion and frustration, these theories are presented as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... and people fold and bend to it ... losing sight of reality ... accepting "aruguments from authority" ... that because they are scientists, they must know the truth.
I think there are two "legitimate" avenues at this point. You either become a non-believer or become an ardent YEC type, any other choice is a cop-out. It's why am asking the question.....are believers "copping out" in their faith when they accept the universe as it is. Is Socrates right on this point, that any "Christian" who does not accept the biblical story of Creation is a backslider and reprobate and not truly a Christian?I think this is a false dilemma as presented here. Christians can still have all sorts of bad ideas and wrong interpretations ... if they believe in the fundamentals (Virgin Birth, Diety of Christ, Resurrection, etc.), they are still Christians. However, those Christians have allowed compromise to enter their theology, and this can (and often does) affect them in that they may then start on a slipperly slope to disobedience and disbelief. In short, losing faith through compromise.
I am not now a believer, but I did used to be. And it was questions, such as the ones I asked at the start of this thread, that led me to doubt my faith and led me to be a non-believer.And this pretty much makes my aforementioned point. It is like those that advocate tolerance ... pretty soon we "tolerate" ourselves into loss of faith through the compromise of "whatever anyone wants to do is okay by me." This is just "whatever anyone wants to believe is okay by me" ... "love the sinner, hate the sin" (I have been guilty myself of saying this last one) ... but fail to realize that love encompasses protection of the person for whom you are caring. Truth is not relative, no matter what the anti-Christs would have you believe. Neither are the interpretations of anything necessarily the truth. That is why we needed the Creator to tell us the details in His word, to keep us from misunderstanding what we see and believing it is true. We can look at optical illusions, and if we are not told/do not believe it is such, we might believe what our eyes tell us. Or we can be "tone deaf" and miss the beautiful music that is playing. There are many wonderful things that cannot be seen with the naked eye ... and until we have aid to see them, we would miss the truth. Just because we don't have an explanation, doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of consideration. This mindset simply puts fallible man over infallible God. God is sovereign, and as such we should believe His word.
And back to my original question, vague answers that I don't have the authority to Question god, but that he just is and just did what he did is not an answer at all. I think you "swallowed the camel/strained the gnat" on this one ... which is why it wasn't an answer to you. What I meant is that we shouldn't get so bogged down in the "unanswered" questions (but I believe creation is not one of them) as to disbelieve God and lose faith. Yes, we were created with a brain of our own, but why use it to ask inane questions as to why 6 days (instead of 5, 7, or even 1). This is along the lines of asking if God can create a more powerful God. It only leads to more meaningless questions. It would be more productive to examine the principles and biases behind those that perpetuate the theories and see if there is a reason why they would want to make themselves ... and others ... believe there is no Creator. No Creator means no one to have to answer to. No Creator means that they can be little gods themselves ... by claiming the fame of being recognized in their fields ... little generals with self-imposed importance that have little blind minions following them. And unfortunately, they have blinded some Christians to how the compromises can harm them, and they follow the lie instead of the truth the God laid out for them ... twisting the Bible to fit the "science."

Or you can question how the interpretation of the Bible can possibly be true. How the Creator could fashion the heavens and the Earth "of old" (2 Pet 3:5) ready for humans to subdue and have authority over. How we humans are in the image of God, unique and loved over all animals. Not an accident of nature, but creation by the supernatural.

I've said it before, I have no problem with the Earth appearing old (leaving aside for the moment that 6000-7000 years IS OLD!), because Adam and Eve were created fully formed. It doesn't go against the Bible for the Earth to appear that way. What I have a problem with is the misinterpretations that this appearance means that it is old, that God somehow set out to decieve mankind (even though He told us in His word the truth of why that appearance was made), and that there are Christians who are willing to bend and twist to please everyone ... except God ... the very one they acknowledge as Savior/Redeemer/Creator/Almighty Father.

[tgamble]

The "reality" of what mankind's science guesses it to be, or the reality (aka truth) that the Earth was formed fully functional and ready for inhabitance?

You have evidence that your dogma is the truth?


Again, by realizing that mankind is fallible and that the interpretations are usually perpetuated by those who are have a bias against Creation a priori because of what it represents

Ignoring yet again all the Christian scientists out there.


However, it is still the same, if not new and improved, falsehood that we began with. How can this happen? Because it was built on faulty assumptions and lack of reality/truth.

If that were true, it wouldn't have been accepted in the first place. It certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.


No amount of experimentation and paper-publishing should make a lie "the truth" to the people ... but unfortunately, it does.

Yeah, creationist rags do it all the time.

[QOUTE]That is why we needed the Creator to tell us the details in His word, to keep us from misunderstanding what we see and believing it is true.[/QUOTE]

And maybe one of these days he'll get around to it. Meanwhile, calling a myth "God's word" doesn't make it so.


I've said it before, I have no problem with the Earth appearing old (leaving aside for the moment that 6000-7000 years IS OLD!),

Hardly! It's very young. The real age, 4.5 billion years, is old.


What I have a problem with is the misinterpretations that this appearance means that it is old,

You have evidence that's it's misinterpreted? Of course not, all you have is blind faith in an archaic creation myth that was proven wrong centeries ago.


that God somehow set out to decieve mankind (even though He told us in His word the truth of why that appearance was made),

Care to point to the verse where it says anything about radiometric dating?

This appearance of age crap was rejected long ago by theologians who recognized that it DOES make God deceptive.

The real reason why the earth looks old is because it is old.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
SherBear:
But the question this begs is "what reality do you inhabit?". The "reality" of what mankind's science guesses it to be, or the reality (aka truth) that the Earth was formed fully functional and ready for inhabitance? That there is a supernatural Creator who fashioned things as they needed to be fashioned. Who is man to dictate what laws should be followed?Man is bound by his ability to observe. He can't predict what he can't observe. Man has developed science to predict and make understood how processes work. YOu don't seem to have problems with math, medicine, automotive technology, etc... Do you really think all this stuff is not all related? They all developed from the same scientific principles. Its just that medicine doesn't really go against your biased view from the beginning.
And besides, when you say scientists, that includes the vast majority, atleast in the US, that ARE christians. I went to a christian college and they had no problem with the big bang, no global flood, old earth. In fact, they'd have laughed in your face, the Brothers with PhD's in physics, if you suggested such things.

Again, by realizing that mankind is fallible and that the interpretations are usually perpetuated by those who are have a bias against Creation a priori because of what it represents ... a need for a Creator.A creator isn't the problem. Galileo believed in your God. So did Newton. However, science doesn't allow for predictions to be made that can't be tested. You can't prove a god's existence in the laboratory. If you could, it would have been done by now.

Even those who have no intention to deceive, build their science on the foundation of the ones that came before. And as such, the biases, assumptions, and errors are passed from the first one to the next, and so on.Oh that is just arrogent and ignorant. The first sciences were based on the same type of religious dogma you are exhibiting. However, when people started to discover that you could cure disease with medicine and that it wasn't caused by demons, they went straight ahead with observation and away from religious dogma within science. It was tested and disproven. It didn't not rain because of gods. It just didn't rain.
What makes their observations actual truth? They form ideas of what they believe to be truth, and experiment to either disprove or prove their ideas. But the proofs are only subjective to the theories ... meaning if the whole premise of what they are looking for is false, even if they "prove" it ... they have only confimred falsehood.OY! There have been a number of false things proven, but given time, it will be disproven. They thought they had proven the Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't. It was later disproven. They thought that light traveled through an ether. That was discounted over time. Science allows for scrutinization. That is what makes it so powerful. It is very hard to grow a monopoly on some concern that is wrong and keep it there.

...or by the lack of education of the public to fight the self-coined words and doublespeak that causes confusion and frustration, Oh that is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:The first sciences were based on the same type of religious dogma you are exhibiting.And of course JH has no dogma at all does he? Atheists are the epitome of objectivity. However, when people started to discover that you could cure disease with medicine and that it wasn't caused by demons, Yet again the ignorant insinuation that the Bible claims all diseases were caused by demons. This is not true at all. Luke was a physician.... they went straight ahead with observation and away from religious dogma within science.Actually, this whole approach was founded in what Jimmy the Bigot calls "religious dogam", in that the founders of modern science believed that the universe was made by a "God of Order" (1 Cor. 14:33) who had given us the permission to investigate His creation (Gen. 1:28). It was tested and disproven. It didn't not rain because of gods. It just didn't rain. And what Christian ever thought otherwise?

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

However, when people started to discover that you could cure disease with medicine and that it wasn't caused by demons, [/list]Yet again the ignorant insinuation that the Bible claims all diseases were caused by demons.

All, some, a few. Who cares? It's wrong in any case!


It just didn't rain. [/list]And what Christian ever thought otherwise?

He's not claiming they did. He's pointing out that supernatural explanations were rejected!

[Warcraft3]

The Curtmudgeon :

"Actually, except for the "suffering" aspect, even YECs who read the Scripture believe that Adam and Eve had work to do, and not just in Eden:"

True. I wasnt trying to imply that YECs think that Adam and Eve just lounged around all day. Im sure Socrates could agree with the statement that humans were always supposed to work, and did so from the first day (meaning 24 hours in this sentence). {As an OEC I have to clarify what I mean by day):tongue: Anyway, again I did not mean to imply that YECs dont think there was work in the garden.


Russ

[wienerdog]

The universe is constructed in such a way that everything about it points to a very ancient existence, yet the core of the faith says something radically different from this.

Are you kidding? The timing of creation is the core of the Christian faith? Have you ever actually read the Bible? Why not just say that "everything about the universe points to its immense size, yet the core of the Christian faith says something radically different from this"?

[Pilgrim]

04-04-2003 @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=54638#post54638)
bobazilla:

The story (or stories?) of Creation is not a logical story and does not fit into the reality I inhabit. How is it possible to maintain faith against the reality of the universe?

The universe is constructed in such a way that everything about it points to a very ancient existence, yet the core of the faith says something radically different from this. So how can anyone reasonably justify maintaining their faith against that reality.

I think there are two "legitimate" avenues at this point. You either become a non-believer or become an ardent YEC type, any other choice is a cop-out.

It's why am asking the question.....are believers "copping out" in their faith when they accept the universe as it is. Is Socrates right on this point, that any "Christian" who does not accept the biblical story of Creation is a backslider and reprobate and not truly a Christian?

I think he sees this point more clearly than anyone.

You should either believe totally and completely with absolute faith in God and Creation or you should not believe at all. Any other option is ultimately bearing "false witness" to yourself.

I am not now a believer, but I did used to be. And it was questions, such as the ones I asked at the start of this thread, that led me to doubt my faith and led me to be a non-believer.

And back to my original question, vague answers that I don't have the authority to Question god, but that he just is and just did what he did is not an answer at all.

Excluded Middle maybe?

[JesusFreakVOM]

bobazilla, your judging GOD by the limitations of man, big mistake.

[bobazilla]

Today @ 07:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60486#post60486)
JesusFreakVOM:

bobazilla, your judging GOD by the limitations of man, big mistake.

What else have I got to go by??? And besides, everyone judges God by the limitations of man! It really cannot be otherwise.

Everything in the bible, every theological discussion, every thing we all say and do is done through the limitations of man.

So don't tell me it's a "big mistake"....because realistically you don't know any more that I do.

[$cirisme]

Also, why 6 days of work and one day off? Why not 10 & 2? Or 1 & 1, or any other combination of work days and days off?

Because it is exactly what we need. I believe it was Napoleon that changed the definition of week to 9 days of work, 1 day of rest.(or something like that)

He called them decades, and he used it to *try* to get more work done. It failed miserably. Neither man nor beast could keep up.

The seven day week shows God's provision for us. It provides enough work, but not too much lest we get tired. It provides enough rest, but not too much.

And I completely disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had nothing to do in the garden, as that is not how God works. We don't know very much about life in the garden, but they weren't just sitting around. :hrm:

Work did not just suddenly appear after the fall, it did, however, increase ad man was forced to gather food for himself.

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60571#post60571)
cirisme:



Because it is exactly what we need. I believe it was Napoleon that changed the definition of week to 9 days of work, 1 day of rest.(or something like that)

He called them decades, and he used it to *try* to get more work done. It failed miserably. Neither man nor beast could keep up.

The seven day week shows God's provision for us. It provides enough work, but not too much lest we get tired. It provides enough rest, but not too much.

And I completely disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had nothing to do in the garden, as that is not how God works. We don't know very much about life in the garden, but they weren't just sitting around. :hrm:

Work did not just suddenly appear after the fall, it did, however, increase ad man was forced to gather food for himself.

:rofl: :rofl:

[bobazilla]

"The seven day week shows God's provision for us. It provides enough work, but not too much lest we get tired. It provides enough rest, but not too much."

I agree that 6 + 1 as a week is a pretty good ratio, it's really a case of baby bear's porridge being "Just Right!". Some other "weeks" are listed here:

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html#SECTION00610000000000000000

But I disagree that the week was created by God. It was just a practical choice made by a people practical in the ways of earning a living. After a while though, things like the "week" become more than just a practical choice, they become "cultural". Then the culture assigns them a "religious" meaning. Eventually the religious choice becomes "law". (Anyone remember blue laws here in the U.S?)

"And I completely disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had nothing to do in the garden, as that is not how God works. We don't know very much about life in the garden, but they weren't just sitting around.

Work did not just suddenly appear after the fall, it did, however, increase ad man was forced to gather food for himself."

I just reread Genesis with this in mind, and it says nothing on the subject. The only thing I know of that Adam had to do was name the beasts and plants. Any other thoughts on the subject is purely conjecture.

Bobazilla
P.S. I still want to know just how "God Works" as every theist I've talked to has told me something different.

[Woman]

So how come the entire modern world now has a 5 day work week?

[Socrates]

Cirisme:


And I completely disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve had nothing to do in the garden, as that is not how God works. We don't know very much about life in the garden, but they weren't just sitting around.

Work did not just suddenly appear after the fall, it did, however, increase ad man was forced to gather food for himself.

Bobazilla:I just reread Genesis with this in mind, and it says nothing on the subject. The only thing I know of that Adam had to do was name the beasts and plants. Any other thoughts on the subject is purely conjecture. Then you didn't read very carefully -- Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it." So Cirisme was perfectly correct in what he said.

[bobazilla]

I stand corrected....

:bawl:

[Socrates]

WomanSo how come the entire modern world now has a 5 day work week?There is still a seven-day cycle. The reason for the two days off now could be that Saturday is the Sabbath and Sunday was when the Resurrection of the Lord occurred. In fact, in many languages, the word for Saturday is related to Sabbath and for Sunday related to Lord's Day -- e.g. in Spanish, sábado and domingo.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60653#post60653)
Woman:

So how come the entire modern world now has a 5 day work week?

Cuz we're lazy spuds who want a 5 + 2 week instead of 6 + 1.

[JesusFreakVOM]

bobazilla, you misunderstood me, what i was saying is that you are putting the limitations of man on GOD. as his creation, we are naturally much more limited than GOD is.

[bobazilla]

JFVOM:

So because I'm limited I dare not judge God? That being anything less than God I don't have a perspective that allows me to judge God? He's unknowable and works in mysterious ways?

But my point, which I think you missed:

As an average Joe of average intelligence and education, I have no choice but to judge God or his reality by what I know of reality.

In other words, I won't just roll over and just say, "But that's the way god is, and who are we to judge such a magnificent deity?" If God exists (which I don't believe) he has a lot of explaining to do. And as a sentient being put here for God's purposes, I think he owes me that. (I know, God owes me nothing.) The only parallel I can relate to is having children, and I would never, ever, treat my children the way the OT God has treated humanity.

So whether you think it's a "big mistake" or not, I will judge on the validity of God and his ways, I don't have a choice. And for that matter, neither does anyone else

[$cirisme]

But I disagree that the week was created by God.

You are free to, but without any actual proof, I will not be joining you. :bunny:

[JesusFreakVOM]

cirisme, i think some of these people came straight out of the planet of the apes.......:argh:

[$cirisme]

According to creationists, they're(we're) special beings created in God's image.

According to atheists, they came from pond scum.

Turns out they both are right. :lol:

[JesusFreakVOM]

cirisme, dont buy into that evolutionist garbage.:no:

[$cirisme]

I know, it was joke.

Sorry, it was pretty lame. :argh: :wink:

[bobazilla]

If then, said I, the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence & yet who employs these faculties & that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.

Thomas Huxley

[$cirisme]

Hmm?

:huh:

[bobazilla]

Huxley was saying he would rather honestly acknowledge his obvious kinship to apes than to be a blow-hard with no tools to fight with but ridicule.

Bobazilla

P.S. I'm proud to be from the Planet of the Apes! At least apes don't twist the truth to support their version of reality!!!

[$cirisme]

Do you have any proof for evolution?

[bobazilla]

Today @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63074#post63074)
cirisme:

According to creationists, they're(we're) special beings created in God's image.

According to atheists, they came from pond scum.

Turns out they both are right. :lol:

That thinking is why most anti-evolutionists won't acknowledge the evidence right in front of them. By accepting evolution they will feel that they have been demoted, and not quite the "special beings created in god's image". You become just another creature like the rest of us in the animal world.

So smug comments about pond scum appear to be good for your ego....but sadly, it still doesn't change reality.

[$cirisme]

I take it that's a no. :fight:

And I also assume that you have a double standard that says that even though Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=62) encourages mocking Christians, that does not inavlidate their argument.

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63328#post63328)
cirisme:

I take it that's a no. :fight:

And I also assume that you have a double standard that says that even though Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=62) encourages mocking Christians, that does not inavlidate their argument.

It's not really encouraged as much as it is allowed. If you want to post a thread bashing atheists in the same forum, you'd be allowed to do that as well.

and a lot of the humor there isn't really antichristian (through a lot of it is). And if quoting things like this and laughing at it (or crying whatever) is "mocking Christians" well, TS.

"I would say the clouds are the water in the sky. The sun is not a star. The Bible says God created the earth ,sun, moon, and the stars. Did not say the sun and other stars. They are described separately. I would also say the so called eight other planets are really just stars. Let's see mars the Greek God of war. Mercury another greek mythology character. Venus too. Pluto, Neptune and you get the idea. Only one moon and one universe with no ets out there."

""And no, hawking isn't an idiot, though I distrust cripples."

Admit it, you find such quotes as disturbing as any atheist. Don't you?

[Socrates]

BobazillaP.S. I'm proud to be from the Planet of the Apes! At least apes don't twist the truth to support their version of reality!!!Talk about begging the question. And he, as usual, can't explain why lying should be objectively wrong under his evolutionary view. Face it, under his view that we are rearranged pond scum, there is nothing wrong with lying, so why should we trust him as far as we could throw him?

[Butters]

O.K. Then if we believe the Bible, we are not pond scum, we are DIRT! Does that make you feel better?

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63859#post63859)
Socrates:

BobazillaP.S. I'm proud to be from the Planet of the Apes! At least apes don't twist the truth to support their version of reality!!!Talk about begging the question. And he, as usual, can't explain why lying should be objectively wrong under his evolutionary view. Face it, under his view that we are rearranged pond scum, there is nothing wrong with lying, so why should we trust him as far as we could throw him?

Because nobody claims we are rearranged pond scum.

So what's YOU'RE excuse for lying? What's your excuse for pretending that evolution, like any science, has to do with morals or ethics?

[Tycho]

Good one Socrates! Your continuing fight against science and rationality will have those non-scientists running to God's True Word (the Koran) any second now!

The god-hating atheists and their churchian allies, as usual, can't explain why lying should be objectively wrong under the atomic view. Face it, under the misotheists' view that we are rearranged methane, there is nothing wrong with lying, so why should we trust them as far as we could throw them?

[tgamble]

Socrates, with his antiscience attitude, doesn't seem to realize that our physical makeup doesn't change with the explanation for it.

Unless "pond scum" has a different genetic code (ie. doesn't have DNA), then the conclusion is obvious.

What that has to do with morals is unclear but I guess Socrates has to resort to such emotional rhetoric because he has no evidence.

algae
Related: Microscopic Organisms

(al´je) [plural of Lat. alga seaweed], a large and diverse group of primarily aquatic plantlike organisms. These organisms were previously classified as a primitive subkingdom of the plant kingdom, the thallophytes (plants that lack true roots, stems, leaves, and flowers). More recently, most algae have been classified in the kingdom Protista or in another major group called the eukarya (or eukaryotes), which includes animals and higher plants. The algae have chlorophyll and can manufacture their own food through the process of photosynthesis . They are distributed worldwide in the sea, in freshwater, and in moist situations on land. Nearly all seaweeds are marine algae. Algae that thrive in polluted water, some of which are toxic, can overmultiply, resulting in an algal bloom and seriously unbalancing their ecosystem.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/algae.asp

Remember folks. Noah didn't take any of it onto the ark. Nope, just vertebrates. Algae along with fungi and all plants must have evolved from a few seeds that managed to survive the flood. In just a few thousand years.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Socratism]

Algae along with fungi and all plants must have evolved from a few seeds that managed to survive the flood. In just a few thousand years.

You should read about Charles Darwin's studies on this very subject.

In addition, the latest information in the area of genetics seems to support the notion that rapid diversification from existing types is a "built-in" feature of the sexual reproduction process called meiosis. This feature would seem to be what permits effective adaptation to rapid changes in the environment, something that would not be possible in a process dominated by such a slow and haphazard process as "random" mutation only.

Most informed creationists recognize this adaptive capability of rapid change in response to equally rapid changes in the environment. What is disputed is whether this presumably "built-in" type of variation can be extrapolated to support the "goo to you via the zoo" concept.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64227#post64227)
Socratism:

You should read about Charles Darwin's studies on this very subject.


I doubt his studies had anything to do with the flood myth.


In addition, the latest information in the area of genetics seems to support the notion that rapid diversification from existing types is a "built-in" feature of the sexual reproduction process called meiosis.

lol! It's not THAT rapid! Certainly not from a few seeds!


Most informed creationists recognize this adaptive capability of rapid change in response to equally rapid changes in the environment. What is disputed is whether this presumably "built-in" type of variation can be extrapolated to support the "goo to you via the zoo" concept.

You creationists just love those childish rhymes don't you? Can't come up with any evidence so just invent childish rhetoric.

You claim that a few seeds that survived (absurd on its own!) the flood produced ALL plants and ALL Algae and ALL fungi in just a few thousand years yet deny that large scale evolution is impossible and that such large variation (three Kingdoms) is just "variation within a kind". :rofl: :rofl:

At the same time, you claim that humans and chimps are a seperate kind. Just what, theres more diversity between a rose and Algae than chimps and humans! :bonk: :bonk:

[Butters]

Now hold on, I always thought that genetic mutations resulted in a LOSS of information. So, if there were just a few seeds after the flood, where did all this diversity come from?

What about cats? If there were only two "kinds" of cats on the ark, how did they mutate into all the different cats that live today.
They could not have GAINED any information, right?

[bobazilla]

Way back when, at the start of this thread, I posted the following:

"Genesis says God created all of Creation in 6 days, this led me to some random thoughts, and I wonder what others think of the following questions:

If god created the pieces of creation in some type of sequential order, does that mean God is subjected to time? Does he have to follow a linear time like the rest of us? Is there something about creation that requires one piece to be "built" before others can be added?

Why did he create creation in pieces? Why not just do it all in one grand flash of creation? Why one piece after another? There was noone there to see this, so was it just for his own satisfaction? (We only have God's word he did it in 6 days, filtered through Moses.)

If God is subject to some type of linear time, then what did he do before the creation of the universe?"

So far the only answers I've gotten are:
1. On the 7th day god rested, much as a lawyer will "rest" his case.
2. God created the 7day week as a model for humanity.....but why is not really clear.
3. I should not question God, because I'm limited (as it was put, that is a "big mistake")
4. I did learn that A&E were meant to till the garden before being evicted.
5. Atheist's don't have a monopoly on smugness and the use of ridicule.

But none of that truly answered what I'm curious about:

Why 6 days to create the universe,,,,why not one grand "pop" and there is all of creation? Is God a temporal being? Did God "have to" build the universe in pieces? Etc......

[wienerdog]

He didn't have to take time to do it, but he chose to. Many of the early Church Fathers thought that the days of creation were metaphorical, and that God created everything instantaneously.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68109#post68109)
wienerdog:

He didn't have to take time to do it, but he chose to. Many of the early Church Fathers thought that the days of creation were metaphorical, and that God created everything instantaneously.

Augustine of Hippo was of course one of those.


Why 6 days to create the universe,,,,why not one grand "pop" and there is all of creation? Is God a temporal being? Did God "have to" build the universe in pieces?

Answer 2. seems to be the only one which has evidence to support it, but the fact is that we will never know such things unless God decides to tell us, either in this life or the next.

With regard to time the only scriptural evidence I know of is that there are time references in Revelation that pertain to events in Heaven. This is not conclusive evidence but it is suggestive.

The main reasons for assuming that time pertains only to this physical world seem to be that some scientists believe this, and it also makes sense to people who believe that God can "see" a future that has not yet occurred for us mortals.