|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
ULColeMan
Reply with quote  #1 
Thank for taking time to read my question. I am a college student eager to learn about theology and philosophy. 

I heard in one of Dr. Craig's videos that he references a big bang with the assumption being made that God caused the big bang to occur (See Contingency 34 minute to 35 minute). This would go against the book of Genesis' account of Creation being "6 days". The Hebrew word for day does not lay out a 24 hour time period. However, the morning and evening COULD imply a 24 hour period. This is irrelevant; still shows God created things with language in stages. Genesis does not even hint towards a big bang. Knowing that the sun was created after days began occurring (we get our 24 hours from the sun as you know) and knowing that vegetation was created before the sun and knowing that light existed before the sun. I assume you could believe God caused the big bang to happen and made these so called 'days' stages in which he organized the chaos. Could someone shine some light on the entire situation?

multiple questions: Do you believe in actual 6 day creation? If so, explain 4.6 billion years please. Do you believe Genesis is poetic? If so, explain please. Do you believe God caused the big bang to occur and thus used stages, or days for this to take place? If so, give biblical references please. 
If you could, shine some light on how vegetation existed before the sun, why God deemed the term day and not stage, and how there was light before the sun.

Thanks very much for your time.
Sincerely,
an open minded believer on Genesis. . . Cole. 
My email is jesusisamazing06@aol.com if you would like to send emails with your theological view of Genesis instead of posting long replies. Much appreciated (wish I could show it). 
Noraaron
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:

"In the Beginning god created the heavns and the earth...."

So in this statement the universe can easily be 13.5 billion years old...or a trillion years...dosnt really matter. all the matter energy space and time needed for a universe to come into an excistence happens instantly, So no problem with the big bang and genesis.
Quote:
 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

For days on earth, they are governed by our solar system, once our solar sytem is formed to a state that represnents night and day on earth then we can start the first day.

This can be literally 13.5 billion years  or 10 trillion...between the big bang and the forming of the solar system to allow a first day...but it seems to be 13.5 currently.

The problem comes on the first day to the sixth day.   Alot of work gets done by one being if genesis is true... But it is a Deity so you should remember that.

But i do find the first 2 paragraphs strange how they conform to modern science..loosly, but they fit. 
Msheekha
Reply with quote  #3 
On vegetation, if God sustains life as we know it, was it too difficult for Him to sustain plants without the sun? I mean, if we believe He is the creator of the universe, would it be far fetched to assume that God was all the energy that plant life required?
ULColeMan
Reply with quote  #4 
Thank you for your reply. 
You're assuming the solar system was formed at or before verse 3. However, verse 2 seems to note the opposite; that the earth was without form. How then do you explain Genesis 1:14-19 which notes the creation of a greater star and lesser star. Most theologians agree it is referring to the sun and the moon. Your view that the solar system was already formed contradicts this, from what I see. 
Can you explain this? Once again, thank you for your time and thoughts. It has been bothering me lately.
scepticalguy
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noraaron

But i do find the first 2 paragraphs strange how they conform to modern science..loosly, but they fit. 


I do not see how they fit at all and looking at the creation story from start to finish anybody without "wanna believe" sunglasses on can see its utter nonsense.



Noraaron
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scepticalguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noraaron

But i do find the first 2 paragraphs strange how they conform to modern science..loosly, but they fit. 


I do not see how they fit at all and looking at the creation story from start to finish anybody without "wanna believe" sunglasses on can see its utter nonsense.




From start to finish i agree...that is why i stopped on the first day....cause i have no possible way to fit the shaping of earth as we know it with science in six days including dinosaurs etc.. 

But the start is pretty juicy, and works within science.
From a universe existence point of view, Big bang up to what we could call a first day of earth...its final settlement in the solar system with the moon creating tides etc...  Can fit into the period between the first paragraph and the start of the first day with how modern science claims the universe exploded and slowly cooled to form out solar system and planet.

Quote:
"in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"

Here you have to take some liberty's on the words, does Heaven and Earth = Universe?   I think in history "the heavens" is everything above the earth and beyond, and used that way for centurys, so it is not a far fetched, and Universe means everything pertaining to it. 

Heavens and Earth = Universe = Everything  

So god created every thing instantly...   So it fits.

Then the upto the first day can be fine tuning argument for conditions conducive to life....like abiogenesis if you think that is how life occured? 

The only difficulty comes in the arranging of the universe particully earth....but if you are a believer at this point, then you have no need to worry....god made the universe in a instance.....so logically he should be able to make all life instantly as it should be simpler than the universe yet it took him six days... now im just being facetious.  
 Yeh it breaks down after the first day fairly quickly trying to get it to coincide with science. The start works really well though.

Noraaron
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Msheekha
On vegetation, if God sustains life as we know it, was it too difficult for Him to sustain plants without the sun? I mean, if we believe He is the creator of the universe, would it be far fetched to assume that God was all the energy that plant life required?
Im not sure if i understand... vegetation was after the first day...so there was sunlight for plants?  

Quote:
Thank you for your reply. 
You're assuming the solar system was formed at or before verse 3. However, verse 2 seems to note the opposite; that the earth was without form. How then do you explain Genesis 1:14-19 which notes the creation of a greater star and lesser star. Most theologians agree it is referring to the sun and the moon. Your view that the solar system was already formed contradicts this, from what I see. 
Can you explain this? Once again, thank you for your time and thoughts. It has been bothering me lately.
"And let them be for the signs of the seasons" 
this can be acheived by the planets rotation on its axis. 

So the lights in the expanse are for the seasons, not the primary light source as mentioned before the first day.
That light from the sun and the moons reflection can excist before hand, but only come into play on earths rotation.  So it is not that either are not there, but that the earth rotates on its axis has not begun, creating the seperations. 

but then it also goes on to mention how god did create greater and lesser light...again could be part of the spinnig of the earths axis...hard pill to swallow i know. 
There certainly is alot of difficulties.. i have always thought that if you believe in god you have to take it on face value.  we can try and fit it in to what we observe and believe is possible... which is difficult....or take gods word for it.   
ULColeMan
Reply with quote  #8 
Thank you all very much for your responses.
It is a hard pill to swallow indeed.
Keep them coming, please.
scepticalguy
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noraaron


From start to finish i agree...that is why i stopped on the first day....cause i have no possible way to fit the shaping of earth as we know it with science in six days including dinosaurs etc.. 

But the start is pretty juicy, and works within science.



You are kidding right?


Quote:
From a universe existence point of view, Big bang up to what we could call a first day of earth...its final settlement in the solar system with the moon creating tides etc...  Can fit into the period between the first paragraph and the start of the first day with how modern science claims the universe exploded and slowly cooled to form out solar system and planet.


How?.


Quote:
Here you have to take some liberty's on the words, does Heaven and Earth = Universe?   I think in history "the heavens" is everything above the earth and beyond, and used that way for centurys, so it is not a far fetched, and Universe means everything pertaining to it. 

Heavens and Earth = Universe = Everything  

So god created every thing instantly...   So it fits.


liberty's on the words?

You mean it says god created stuff and cos you think stuff was created the bible is now a science manual or at least the part you refer to is so vague that its not utterly refuted by actual science?


Quote:
"And let them be for the signs of the seasons"

this can be achieved by the planets rotation on its axis.


Er, the earth spinning gives us day and night, the earth orbiting the sun gives us the seasons.


skunker
Reply with quote  #10 
Lets keep in mind that 'creationism' is merely a product of contemporary thinking. It was never a thought of ancient church fathers. 

St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
ULColeMan
Reply with quote  #11 
Thanks again for responding. I am not here to debate. I am here to hear a Theism's view of theology on creation. 

Skunker, May I request your email, please? I am interested in hearing what you have to say. My questions include: What do you personally believe about creation? All you did was state what early saints have believed or said. If you believe Genesis 1-2 is allegorical, what causes the earth into being? I'm assuming the big bang. Do you have scripture evidence of the big bang? I understand just because there is not scripture evidence does not mean it did not happen. I am wondering if there is. Also, you stated '...God creating life by means of evolution.' You believe in evolution? I feel this contradicts Genesis 1-3 where in made animals, according to its kind. And he created man within the same 'days' or time period he created animals. What is your response?

Thanks again. Cole.
Maxeo
Reply with quote  #12 
Old Earth Creationist.  Level 2 multiverse proponent.  Day-Age.
skunker
Reply with quote  #13 
ULCole, Dr. Craig has a ton of reading material on this site with various answers to your questions. 
Jared
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULColeMan
Thank for taking time to read my question. I am a college student eager to learn about theology and philosophy.

No problem. I hope we can be of help. 

Quote:
Do you believe in actual 6 day creation?

"Literal" is a slippery word. Strictly speaking, a literal interpretation is any which supposes the text is referring to what it describes, as opposed to, say, allegory or myth which refer to a reality beyond what the text actually describes. So, anybody who maintains Genesis is describing the physical creation of the world is a literalist in that way, whether they accept Old Earth creationism, Young Earth creationism, or a phenomenological view. I believe Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elis, and so it borrows heavily from them to correct their understanding of God's relationship to his creation. Moreover, I think the framework hypothesis is an interpretation we ought to take seriously.

Quote:
Do you believe Genesis is poetic? If so, explain please.

I think it uses quasi-poetic language, enough to suggest there's a mythical element to it, that it isn't straightforward historical narrative.

Quote:
Do you believe God caused the big bang to occur anwd thus used stages, or days for this to take place? If so, give biblical references please.

I don't believe the biblical authors had any conception of Big Bang cosmology. Their assumed cosmology was Ancient Near Eastern:


Quote:
If you could, shine some light on how vegetation existed before the sun, why God deemed the term day and not stage, and how there was light before the sun.

I don't believe light or vegetation did exist before the Sun, but even the literal phenomenological approach, which states that the creation sequence is from the perspective of someone on earth watching the world being disclosed to him, maintains their creation doesn't have to precede the Sun's creation.

Quote:
Thanks very much for your time.
Sincerely,
an open minded believer on Genesis. . . Cole. 
My email is jesusisamazing06@aol.com if you would like to send emails with your theological view of Genesis instead of posting long replies. Much appreciated (wish I could show it).

Sure. Hope something I said helped. I apologize for the large graphic. x_o
Noraaron
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scepticalguy
You are kidding right?
 

No i am not...it is quite amazing how in the bible it says heavens and the earth created in a instance. 
And the big bang event is exactly the same way that one would imagine a single creation event. Instantly everything.

Quote:

How?.
Quote:

Time wise.  often people attack the creationist for claiming the world was built in 6 days... but if you read the first paragraph there is plenty of room for the universe and the earth as a mass to be as old as any scientific claim of the age of the earth.  
Prehaps i should have rephrased it...the beginning of genesis before the six days has no problem or conflict with the current science regarding the universes begining and its age.  

Quote:
liberty's on the words?

You mean it says god created stuff and cos you think stuff was created the bible is now a science manual or at least the part you refer to is so vague that its not utterly refuted by actual science?
 

I dont think it is a science manual.. far from it.  as above, i was stating that :
Quote:
the beginning of genesis before the six days has no problem or conflict with the current science regarding the universes begining and its age.  
Yet it is quite often thrown around by atheists that the christian thinks everything was made in 6 days....and then ill hear no defense of the age of the universe by a creationist using genesis....it is like neither of them bothered to read the first paragraph...and as i said before, the 6 days for earth to be formed as we know it appears far fetched, it dosnt fit with how science understands evolution etc... 
So even though there is a upside in genesis regarding the earths age and a instant creation "big bang fitting...it crashes and burns after the first day.

Quote:
"And let them be for the signs of the seasons"
this can be achieved by the planets rotation on its axis.


Quote:
Er, the earth spinning gives us day and night, the earth orbiting the sun gives us the seasons.

No, because all planets orbit there suns that is a given..well i think so. 
 The seasons are because of a very specific axis of the earth, not the orbit it self, and the day and night are from the spin/rotation...but yeh..i didnt mention orbit so sue me...i just assumed you got the jist.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.