Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
George Affleck said:
God.

The only difference is that I disagree that a rotating earth is required.
Click to expand...



The account describes the condition at earth which was 'tohu wa-bohu.' There was light elsewhere on day 1, but it wasn't our sun. The reason 'tohu wa-bohu' and light were there is other things were going on before day 1. that is why the real debate is not evolution vs creation but before and after 'tohu wa-bohu.'
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
One question I hope 6days will take up besides 'formless and void' (at least I can't find where it was; is there a handy summary from memory?), is that we have the fact of the smattered surface of the moon. this is not 'science' in the cerebral sense of piles of books and theories that people have thought up. It is just a matter of looking, perhaps with some magnification, and seeing a surface that resulted from a collision or explosion elsewhere and debris landing on it.

Does that make you think of anything in terms of Genesis 1? Is it possible that other things happened not recorded in Genesis 1 that are germain to why things exist the way they do? Does the smattering relate at all to our location being called formless and void when we first get any details about it other than its name?
 
6days

6days

New member
Interplanner said:
One question I hope 6days will take up besides 'formless and void' (at least I can't find where it was; is there a handy summary from memory?), is that we have the fact of the smattered surface of the moon. this is not 'science' in the cerebral sense of piles of books and theories that people have thought up. It is just a matter of looking, perhaps with some magnification, and seeing a surface that resulted from a collision or explosion elsewhere and debris landing on it.**Is it possible that other things happened not recorded in Genesis 1 that are germain to why things exist the way they do?
Click to expand...

Of course there are things that happened other than in Genesis. But not before Genesis 1 verse 1. "IN THE BEGINNING. .."

Interplanner said:
Does the smattering (moon) relate at all to our location being called formless and void when we first get any details about it other than its name?
Click to expand...

How is that possible that the moon created on the 4th day, was smattered before day 1?.....Once you compromise on 'the beginning', them you need to continue compromise throughout scripture.
 
6days

6days

New member
The Barbarian said:
Yep. The death God was talking about was not a physical death, but a spiritual one.
Click to expand...
Your belief makes the gospel message illogical and Christ's death meaningless. Christ did not have to physically die and conquer physical death if it is "very good". If the curse was spiritual death only then why did Christ go to the cross to defeat physical death? GEN. 1:31
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Lighthouse writes:
I was being literal. Adam died a spiritual death the day he disobeyed.
Click to expand...

Barbarian observes:
Yep. The death God was talking about was not a physical death, but a spiritual one.

6days writes:
Your belief makes the gospel message illogical and Christ's death meaningless.
Click to expand...

Your new doctrine requires you to believe it. But as you have seen in Genesis, God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. And Adam eats, but lives on physically for many years after. Your doctrine requires that God say things that are not true.

That's a really bad idea, I think. Let God decide, and you follow what He says, for a change.

If the curse was spiritual death only then why did Christ go to the cross to defeat physical death? GEN. 1:31
Click to expand...

If He came to save us from dying physically, He failed. We all die eventually. But His death and resurrection saved us from a more profound, spiritual death, if we will just avail ourselves of His grace. You can do it.

Again, let God decide. Give up your pride and will, and let Him be God.
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Stripe said:
Of course with God, nothing else is required. However, it makes no sense to insist that the Earth cannot have been rotating and physics dictates that it must have been.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you that.

But you did say: "All that was needed was a light source and a rotating Earth." That is what I was responding to.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Interplanner said:
If you can, try to find F. Schaeffer's NO FINAL CONFLICT booklet. Not because of science details which may need updating but to show that the Bible makes every effort to be true to history, to archeology, to fact, to 'what is there.' It is not a separate type of knowledge when it talks about ordinary things like 4 rivers in "the East" or 'tohu wa-bohu' or a 400 foot vessel known as the ark.
Click to expand...

Hi,
Interplanner, I used to not care or be concerned about the theory of evolution in regards to my Christian Faith (which should be worth more than gold to me, btw.)
I wasn't upset by any differences and figured it would all work itself out as truth should have a way of doing.
But then I started really listening to some who support the theory of evolution... I find that it is like a god that is in direct competition with The Lord God.
I know, you are prolly thinking how bizarre, how can that be?!

No matter how much the "theory" changes, did you know it is still a fact held by its dedicated followers?
A fact that has no permanence other than it is, so no matter what direction it takes or which way it grows, it simply is. If it denies some thought it stood for at first and then embraces it again and then once more denies it as some element of and in itself - it is still - and still held as fact.
Why? I can only guess. Because it is alive in their mind?
Ever growing, ever changing but always ruling?

It has no beginning they can grasp yet, no ending but they love to imagine different ones for it, because of it...

This is a god to me and those who staunchly defend it are its followers. It's not science anymore in my opinion.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
True; it is an unacknowledged religion. Although, back at the beginning, with Huxley more than Darwin, it was acknowledged to take such a place.

However, I am currently more concerned with the right treatment of the expression 'formless and void.' I think there is a real possibility that such processes were left to themselves and created the 'formless and void' situation mentioned at the very beginning of Genesis. Or more exactly, God rendered them such upon seeing what they would make. The Hebrew expression is after all a statement that a judgement by God has taken place, Jer 4:13.

In most other cosmological legend around the world, and in Psalms and Job, this situation that existed before creation was a world dominated by behemoth--the sea monster--a huge lizard. 2 years ago a fairly large marker stone with glyphs was found in my part of the US and the native American elders have concluded that it is Raven (creator) defeating a huge lizard. It seems to be universal.

Did evolution result in T-Rex and God ended it, and then created (formed) this world as we know it from that? Likewise, could this world (the animals and surface conditions as we now have them) result from evolution? It is domesticated. It is not dominated by the most powerful. Something changed the paradigm that we are told is purely evolutionary.

Then there is the imprint of the image of God. What we know of God from Genesis 1 is that he takes 'formless and void' and forms and fills it. Guess what? It is almost instinctive that humans do exactly the same thing.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Interplanner said:
True; it is an unacknowledged religion. Although, back at the beginning, with Huxley more than Darwin, it was acknowledged to take such a place.

However, I am currently more concerned with the right treatment of the expression 'formless and void.' I think there is a real possibility that such processes were left to themselves and created the 'formless and void' situation mentioned at the very beginning of Genesis. Or more exactly, God rendered them such upon seeing what they would make. The Hebrew expression is after all a statement that a judgement by God has taken place, Jer 4:13.

In most other cosmological legend around the world, and in Psalms and Job, this situation that existed before creation was a world dominated by behemoth--the sea monster--a huge lizard. 2 years ago a fairly large marker stone with glyphs was found in my part of the US and the native American elders have concluded that it is Raven (creator) defeating a huge lizard. It seems to be universal.

Did evolution result in T-Rex and God ended it, and then created (formed) this world as we know it from that? Likewise, could this world (the animals and surface conditions as we now have them) result from evolution? It is domesticated. It is not dominated by the most powerful. Something changed the paradigm that we are told is purely evolutionary.

Then there is the imprint of the image of God. What we know of God from Genesis 1 is that he takes 'formless and void' and forms and fills it. Guess what? It is almost instinctive that humans do exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
Well, now. Very well said.
But Interplanner it only makes me wonder what you are hatching in your big brained head...
Firstly if humans do anything like The Lord God it's because they are made in His Image. Which can and does have several meanings to people. To me currently it means we have similar attributes to His but ours are in a fallen state.
As for the phrase you are interested in - well I see you are waving it like a red cape before a bull, or a flag in front of racers. But I'm neither so I got nothin. Well nothin but my admiration at your dedicated interest.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
See the thread on 2 Peter 3. 2 Peter 3 is the most amazing passage to me in that it resolves both cosmology and eschatology questions in so few words.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112445

Before I heard the psychological explanation of the image of God, which I find to be true regardless of whether it is "in" the passage, I believed the ancient near east suzerainty marker approach. The word image meant 'notification' by using a stone or metal marker of a boundary. So humans were markers (to whom?) that this place was God's. A suzerain was a conquering king or other entity who needed to mark what belonged to him.

It is slightly different from what few clues we get from the NT, but not too far. For ex., James 2.
 
6days

6days

New member
Nonon said:
The bible isn't a science book but a book of salvation
Click to expand...

Yes...I agree. However the doctrine of salvation is rooted in the first couple books of Genesis. Actually, all Christian doctrine is rooted in Genesis. And, although Genesis is not a science book, it does touch on some areas of science. When people try dismiss what Genesis clearly teaches, then the gospel message and the purpose of 'Last Adam' are compromised.
 
Caino

Caino

BANNED
Banned
6days said:
Yes...I agree. However the doctrine of salvation is rooted in the first couple books of Genesis. Actually, all Christian doctrine is rooted in Genesis. And, although Genesis is not a science book, it does touch on some areas of science. When people try dismiss what Genesis clearly teaches, then the gospel message and the purpose of 'Last Adam' are compromised.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse Christian doctrine with the original gospel of Jesus.
 
way 2 go

way 2 go

Well-known member
Stripe said:
Every now and then, I get something right. :)
Click to expand...

Kim-Jong-un.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top