Is there a standpoint from which the creation days in Genesis 1 are described as 24 hours per day?

Faith & Science Conversation
221

No – that’s your imagination at work: the Hebrew does not tell us there was a global flood, it tells us that there was a flood of the world known to Noah. And the interesting thing is that archaeologists and geologists have been finding evidence of that very thing, a flood that covered all of Mesopotamia, which is big enough that anyone in a boat anywhere within a hundred kilometers of the middle would not have been able to see the edge – they would have observed that “the whole land” was drowned.
So empirical science is beginning to testify that what the Hebrew text actually says actually did happen.

Yes, it is: the modern worldview you endorse versus the biblical worldview used by the writer(s) the Holy Spirit chose.

That cannot be upheld from scripture; it is an unbiblical a priori assumption.

Circular reasoning: you claim those translations support you because you are reading them from a worldview that requires them to be read the way you want.

222

And that worldview can be supported from the scriptures.

You contradicted yourself: either the relevant factors are taken into account and the measurements mean what they say, or you’re upholding lies – there is no middle ground. When we analyzed those rocks in the lab against other measurements taken in the lab and the result was that those rocks were at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old, that had nothing to do with any worldview, it has to do with objective measurements.

I no longer believe that your description here applies to you: you reject the fact that the scriptures are ancient literature, you reject the fact that the Holy Spirit inspires men to speak through literature and worldviews their audience(s) will understand, and you reject the fact that honest scholars have concluded purely from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 that the earth is uncountably ancient and the universe is more ancient still.

Yes, you’ve chanted that mantra before, and it’s still not correct – the problem is that any time that objective measurements disagree with your views you resort to that mantra rather than accept what your own definitions indicate that you should accept.

And they need to do so because they are driving hordes of young people especially away from the Gospel! It is no accident that the biggest reason a recent poll showed that young people leave the church is because of dishonesty. Thirty years ago legalism and judgmentalism were on top, but it is dishonesty from other Christians that is the top reason now.

Especially since scripture-believing Hebrew scholars concluded from the text that the Earth is uncountably ancient and the universe far more ancient.

That’s quite the creative illustration!

1 Like
223

No, they don’t – the foundation of the Gospels is the Incarnation. When Jesus said, “Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest”, He didn’t mention Genesis – and thus according to Jesus Genesis is not the foundation of the Gosepl.

Except He didn’t – you have to read that into the text, adding to the scriptures.

Christians who “see Genesis as historical narrative” are not “Bible believing” and other not – those who see it that way are mistaken or misled, because the literary genre “historical narrative” did not exist when Genesis was written.

224

This is where young earthism shows its true colours and becomes heretical.

As soon as something other than Christ becomes the foundation of your faith, it ceases to be Christianity.

225

But that makes no sense whatsoever!!
I’m truly amazed that you believe the flood was only a local flood when the Biblical text is so absolutely crystal clear that the flood covered the Earth!
Of course there was a Global flood, it is most certainly your imagination at work (to quote you), to disbelieve what the Biblical text clearly teaches.

Firstly, if that is the case then why don’t the 63 Bible translations that I listed earlier in this thread say that, as they all clearly state that the flood was over the whole Earth?

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Secondly, why would God put Noah and His family through almost 100 years of backbreaking arduous labour and why would He bring two of every animal on Earth and in some cases more than two to board the ark, if all Noah and the animals had to do was walk a hundred kilometres?

Noah built the ark that was absolutely enormous?

image
image947×293 52.8 KB

Image from: Refuting Noahs ark critics

God Bless,
jon

226

I find your arguments illogical and unscientific.
In all the labs that I’ve worked in, the instruments provide precise figures of the empirical contents of the samples, such as the quantities and/or ratios of elements, isotopes and compounds being tested for.

The instruments do not under any circumstances ever provide an age date! for the sample being tested**

If you truly think that, then you really should go back to school and study basic chemical analysis as you clearly do not appear to comprehend or even have a handle on elementary straightforward empirical facts that I have been stating over and over again.

This is rapidly becoming repetitive and tiresome, but for the record, the very precise measurements of the samples being tested are used to derive an age within the WORLDVIEW of the researcher doing the work and the WORLDVIEW that the particular procedure they are using was designed within.

It really is that simple!

It just is!

I despair that your understanding of the elementary principles of empirical analysis is unfortunately severely lacking and do sincerely hope that you realise the plain truth of this simple matter.

What more can I say?

Except that you would do yourself an enormous favour if you read, the article titled:
Damaging Christianity by ignoring science? at: Damaging Christianity by ignoring science?

God Bless,
jon

227

Yes it is becoming repetitive and tiresome. You’ve repeated that point over and over again like a parrot called Kiki. But you haven’t provided a factually accurate justification for it.

We have not only said that it’s untrue but why it’s untrue. We have repeatedly explained to you over and over again that the derivation of an age from the samples is constrained by laws of mathematics, measurement and logic which do not depend on anyone’s worldview.

If you want to justify your claim that the ages are dependent on one’s worldview despite this fact, then you need to explain exactly how one’s worldview manages to get past the constraints imposed by those rules.

If there is some step or other in the derivation that is being overlooked, you need to explain exactly which step it is.

If there is some assumption that is being made, then you need to say exactly what that assumption is.

Oh, and you need to make sure that these steps really are being overlooked, and these assumptions really are being made, and that there aren’t newer, more reliable forms of dating available nowadays that have found ways to get round them.

Because unless you are able to provide that level of justification, you’re just spouting unsubstantiated assertions. And we all have better things to do with our time than to try to argue about creation and evolution with a parrot.

3 Likes
228

[quote=“rsewell, post:203, topic:53022, full:true”]

Hi Ron,

thank you for your post, it is appreciated!

Actually at around about four and a half thousand years ago, when the global flood of Noah destroyed all flesh in whose nostrils was the breath of life, dinosaurs were among the creatures that would have been entombed as fossils in the enormous quantities of sediment that were deposited all over the planet at that time.
Indeed after the flood there most certainly would have been dinosaurs that walked off the ark, but as with many other animals since that time they have unfortunately become extinct.
Why they became extinct, I do not know, and can only speculate, perhaps they were simply all killed by fearful humans, I just don’t know. The Welsh Flag and a carving at Angkor Wat and Chinese images of dragons certainly have similarities in their basic forms to dinosaurs; I don’t think coincidence is the reason that people in the not too distant past knew what the body shape of these creatures were like.

My firm belief is that the inescapable truth indicates they were alive and very recently at that!
I only have to look at some of the photos taken by Mary Schweitzer to clearly see that her amazing discovery exposes the inconsistency of the ruling deep time evolution paradigm with clear Biblical text in our Loving Gods Word of Truth to us all in the Bible.
image
These photos are from a 2005 paper by Schweitzer which reported on the discovery of soft tissue, in addition to strengthening the red blood cell identification—see Still Soft and Stretchy
Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”

The above text and photos adapted from:

The evidence is clear to me as to what the most reasonable explanation is as to why the dinosaur soft tissue exists; our Loving and Faithful Lord God has revealed the Truth in His Holy Word to us, the Bible, and the Scriptures cannot be broken.
Our Lord God clearly tells us that the Global Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago, and honest empirical evidence found in the last few decades support the Biblical account 100%. The researchers themselves working on the dinosaur fossils may not all see it that way, but that’s OK, I pray the truth of these dinosaur bones age and the veracity of the Bible will become known to all who seek to know the truth.

From the small amount I have read about and from Mary Schweitzer herself, she sounds like an honest humble Christian, who works as a scientist who is doing her level best to understand and make sense of what she has discovered. The deep time evolution paradigm that appears to constitute her worldview is clearly at odds with the reality of the dinosaur bone and soft tissue finds.
The same applies to the other three score or more finds around the globe that similarly attest to the reliability and Truth of Gods Word.

Everyday practical empirical chemistry tells us that four and a half thousand years is possible for the age of these dinosaur bones and soft tissue discoveries, 65 million + years is simply not!

God Bless,
jon

229

We know the explanation. Among other stress factors, they were taken out by the Chicxulub impact 65 mya.

But your reply does not even touch on the question which was presented to your appeal to soft tissue. One - if these remains are recent, we would have specimens with much greater degree of preservation. Two - why did every sauropod, ornithischian, hadrosaur, theropod, and plesiosaur go extinct after the flood? There are hundreds of species, and then there are the permian creatures. It makes no sense to even put them on the ark if every single last one is a goner.

2 Likes
230

Yep – and that’s a good test for a cult: if Christ has been moved from the center or is not considered the foundation, you no longer have Christianity, you probably have a cult.

1 Like
231

That’s false: the Hebrew text only reports a flood of the world known to Noah.

No, it’s because I refuse to add to the text, which is the only way to get a global flood. In fact talking about a global flood shows that a person is putting science above the Bible, since the Bible doesn’t regard the world as a globe; that comes from science.

I already explained this: those translations flow not from the Hebrew text but from the influence of Greek thought on Judaism after Alexander the Great. I’ve already shown that the word translated “earth” actually means “land” in the context. No one translates אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (air-etz yis-ra-ail) as “Earth of Israel”, and it’s the very same word being used – אֶרֶץ (air-etz).

English translations are not the inspired text, the Hebrew is – and the Hebrew word the Genesis writer used just does not mean the entire Earth unless you want to go back to the cosmology of the time and assert that the Earth is a flat disk with a solid dome over it surrounded by water above, around, and below (underneath the underworld).

The ark as described wouldn’t have lasted a single day in storm conditions, not even if it had been carved from a solid block of wood – that’s a simple strength of materials problem. No wooden ship that large is possible, indeed it would have been suicidal because the moment it crossed a trough between waves it would have splintered in the middle, and when the crest of one of those waves reached the middle it would have sunk.
Yes, it’s intriguing that the proportions happen to be excellent for an unsteered craft to survive in the open ocean, though still not in anything of hurricane force.

232

Yes, they do: the rates at which crystals can deform are known from laboratory testing. Thus if a certain crystal is deformed to a certain degree, that deformation gives a minimum age. The same is true of layers in rocks; they can only deform without breaking at a certain maximum rate.
So if, for example, mica crystals are found deformed but not broken, that gives a minimum age for those crystals; or if mudstone is found bent but not fractured, that gives a minimum date for that piece of mudstone.

That is false, and by now you know it is false since it has been explained so often. It’s also laughable, given that the geology lab group I was in had a variety of worldviews; we had Christians, atheists, a Buddhist, and a Hindu. There was no problem because measurements have nothing to do with any worldview, they just have to do with honesty.

The only “worldview” that mattered was being honest about the measurements, and that was one we all shared.

Well, it managed to get two sentences before presenting falsehood based on imposing modern categories on ancient literature. So I didn’t bother to read farther, especially given that Creation.com is a business that profits from telling falsehoods.

This is proven by the fact that in my geology courses there were generally at least five worldviews represented.

Another example from geology labs: we didn’t even assume that our instruments were accurate, we checked them. Of course the accuracy of our measurements tended to rely on the Mark I human eyeball, which is why every measurement was done twice each by at least three different people.

Especially a parrot who isn’t interested in the actual text of the scriptures.

2 Likes
233

It’s worth pointing out here a couple more of the rules that @Burrawang and other young earthists need to be aware of if they want to attempt to make a meaningful challenge to scientific theories such as deep geological time or biological evolution. Once again, these are rules that do not depend on your worldview; they are the same whether you are a Christian or an atheist, and whether you are doing “operational science” or “historical science.”

First, if you want to provide physical evidence against an established scientific theory, the quality of that evidence must, at the very minimum, be comparable to the quality of the best evidence in support of the theory. Note that the operative word here is quality not quantity. You can be presenting hundreds of different arguments, but if those arguments all consist of tiny samples with huge error bars, when the theory itself is supported by much tighter measurements whose error bars are often less than one or two percent, then you should not be surprised when your arguments are dismissed as nothing more than a gish gallop of pseudoscience. On the other hand, if your measurements are tightly constrained and your analysis stand up to peer review and can be replicated by other researchers, you could well be in for funding for further research or even a Nobel Prize, even if you have been operating on a limited budget.

Note also that there are objective indications of quality that, once again, do not depend on one’s worldview. Error bars are one example.

Young earth arguments such as dinosaur soft tissue are a case in point. There may be measurements giving an indication of how long the substances in question can last, but these measurements are extremely sensitive to environmental conditions and can vary by several orders of magnitude. On the other hand, radiometric dating relies on rates that have been pinned down with tight numerical precision to one percent or less, and the best and most accurate radiometric results from modern cutting-edge techniques can be as tight as one part in five thousand.

Another rule is that if you are going to present an alternative theory to explain the existing evidence, your alternative theory must account for at least as many details of the evidence as the theory you are challenging, in at least as much detail, with at least as much numerical precision. This means that you must account for cross-checks, correlations in the data, and general trends. The classic example here is the correlation between radiometric dating ages and distance in places such as the Hawaiian islands, and the fact that it gives exactly the same results as direct GPS measurements of continental drift in the present day.

Coming back to soft tissue in fossils, one thing that we find is that as we progress through Cenozoic strata (above the K/Pg boundary), the soft tissue findings increase in both quantity and state of preservation the closer the measured ages get to the present day. So soft tissue remnants in the Miocene (23-5 million years ago) are more readily available than in the Oligocene or the Eocene, and it is only when you get into the Pleistocene (2.5 million years - 10,000 years) that you start to find sequenceable DNA. Any attempt to account for soft tissue in fossils must account for this general trend.

I seem to recall that @Joel_Duff did a video on this recently though I can’t remember which one it was.

3 Likes
234

Dear St.Roymond and James,
I find it difficult to process what appears to be the sad depths that you have both descended to on this topic.

I have never, and indeed would never remove Jesus from anything at anytime!
Have I not stated that He is holding everything in this universe in existence right now.

What I did say is that we are informed by God in Genesis about what happened in the Garden of Eden, that is foundational to the gospel of Jesus.
And indeed it is, the fall into sin of a real historical Adam in the real Garden of Eden, and terrible result of that sin, is precisely why every man, woman and child who have or will ever be born need salvation by Jesus, our Lord and Saviour and Creator. It is not just I that attest to this clear fact, our Lord Jesus Himself affirms that Adam and Eve were real people and the flood in Noah’s day was a real flood:

Jesus told His disciples:
" 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:38-39

“26 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man: 27 people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke17:26-27

Paul tells us:
“20 But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

In Luke 24 after Jesus’ Resurrection, two of His disciples were walking along the road to Emmaus, discussing the events of the previous few days. Jesus came alongside them and asked them what they were talking about and why they were so sad. They were kept from recognizing Jesus (v. 13–17). ‘One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?” “What things?” Jesus asked.

‘“About Jesus of Nazareth”? they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”’

Cleopas knew the Scriptures and he saw Jesus as being sent from God, but he was downcast because he failed to understand why Jesus (the Christ) had to die. He and his friend were preoccupied with their present circumstances and the state of their nation. Knowing this, Jesus said to them, ‘“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself’ (v. 25–27).

The same thing happened when Jesus appeared to His disciples in the upper room Luke 24:44–46 Jesus took them back to the beginning, to what Moses had written concerning Himself, when He said: ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’

So what was it that Moses wrote that was needed to clearly explain the Gospel?

It was the foundational account of the Creation (which New Testament writers attribute to Jesus (e.g. John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), the subsequent Fall of Adam, with the entrance of sin and death into the human race, which explains the reason for a substitutionary atonement for sin.

On the road to Emmaus that day, Jesus explained why He had to die. Similarly, we, too, should explain to people today not just that all need a Saviour, but why, and why He had to die for us—foundational concepts established in Genesis.

And regarding the Global flood, Noah believed God when He told him about the worldwide Flood, (something never seen before or since), and Noah believed Him and built the Ark which saved his family (our ancestors) and the animals they took with them on the ark, that enabled the repopulation of the Earth with land animals in whose nostrils is the breath of life.

If you wish to read more, I would encourage you to read the excellent article at: https://creation.com/jesus-teaching-the-big-picture-from-genesis

I sincerely hope and pray that your eyes are opened to the Biblical Truth that the good news of Salvation through our Lord and Saviour is necessary because of the fall of the real Adam in the real Garden of Eden about six thousand years ago, just as the Bible so clearly tells us.

Christianity is based on Truth!

God Bless,
jon

235

Hi Jon, I appreciate the dialog. I am not a YEC. I believe that God’s creation, existing without any human input, is a more reliable source of knowledge about the details of how it was formed than any written text using characters, words and meaning created by man. In other words, the creation tells us how to interpret Genesis, not the other way around.

I will try to present a brief review of a strict literal interpretation of Genesis from a YEC view. It begins with a world of water over which God is hovering. Then light begins to shine and the water is clumsily separated ‘above and below’ the sky. Dry land is formed and produces plants. The celestial lights appear. Then all the animals evolve over a couple of days. All of this occurs in six days. Fast forward to the flood. The earth returns to a world of water, as in the beginning, with the collapse of the water above and gushing of water from below. Basic knowledge of the natural world will tell you that water that uniformly covers the entire earth will have nowhere to go without more supernatural ‘creation’ events. YEC uses this reality about a
global flood to explain the formation of all the geological layers, the fossils, the radioisotopes in just the right state of decay and everything else science uses to determine the age of the earth. Why it took a year for this to happen when the first creation only took six days is a mystery. Maybe doing it quicker would have been too disruptive to the people floating around in the ark. In any case, God says that he will never do that again and gives us a rainbow as a reminder.

I take a different approach to understanding the Genesis story. I refer to it as an epistemic translation of the Hebrew. It relies on the syntax of a literal translation while using a modern vocabulary and knowledge from God’s creation to translate key words. As an example, Genesis 1:1-2 reads, “In the beginning God created space and matter, and the matter was without form and void. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the fluid matter”. Then photons of light begin to shine and the fluid matter is gathered into stars that are needed to produce the elements for planets. The earth is formed and life evolves. Now the story makes sense and the original Hebrew text is not changed. God is the only observer of the process and we know from relativity that time is a variable depending on the observer. The story is telling us how God saw it, not how we will see it. We simply commemorate the creation process and how God saw it with the seven day week cycle. A suitable translation of the flood story would make it a regional event, not the entire earth. The historical human events in the Bible may not be factually accurate, but the moral, figurative and symbolic meaning of the stories can still be truth. This is a very brief description of how I understand Genesis.

God bless,
Fred

2 Likes
236

As I have pointed out, Jesus plainly disagrees – in His view, merely feeling weary and heavily burdened is sufficient.

That’s quite a leap you’ve made – nothing says that anything was “needed” to explain anything at all.

Most people know why they need a Savior. But when I was in university, when Christians started off talking about Genesis they lost their audience; it was when they followed Jesus’ own example and asked people if they felt weary and burdened by life that people listened.

That goes off the rails right here:

Paul points out their altar, labelled ‘To an unknown god’. He then tells them that this unknown god whom they worship is ‘The God who made the world and everything in it’ (v. 24) and that ‘from one man He made every nation of men’ (v. 26). What was Paul doing? He was unfolding the origins of the Gospel as the true history of the world, as found in Genesis.

Paul was linking to ideas that Greek philosophers already considered important, namely where the world came from (and even how), and where all the different nations/peoples came from (and were they equal or not). As usual, Creation.com assumes that what they think must be what the Bible says, and this writer failed to do his homework: Paul got his audience’s attention by beginning with things they found interesting and steering from there onward.

Except it doesn’t – and claiming it does just drives people away.

BTW, I see that portions of your post are lifted straight from the article you recommend. This is called “plagiarism” and is a willful sin.

237

Jon,

Let me put it another way.

Either Genesis is the foundation of the Gospel, or Jesus is the foundation of the Gospel. Which is it?

238

Somewhat. Studying the original language, along with the literary type chosen by the writer and the worldview and cultural context he was writing in, is more helpful than any science. The Holy Spirit inspired writers to speak to their audience in ways that their audience would understand, and to understand the message we need to be able to listen in the ways that original audience would have – or at least to make a valiant effort!

Poor word choice – “roughly” might work, but attributing clumsiness to the Creator is rather weird.

Using the word “evolve” in connection with the first Creation account (or anywhere else in scripture) to describe what it says is reading modern science into the account; better to stick with what the text tells us and avoid appearing to add anything to it. Saying “the animals appeared”, or better “arrived on the scene” – since this is a story – would work.

Yes – it isn’t historical language, it’s chaos-language that scholars would call “myth” or “mythic” (I prefer the second since the first is misleading): in this case, where God removed chaos from the scene in Genesis 1, now God brings chaos back to serve Him (which is actually a sort of back-commentary on Genesis 1, indicating that “the deep” at the beginning was God’s servant despite appearances).

Hears a place where “clumsily” would fit – put it after “to” and in front of “explain”.

And BTW, a global flood is hardly reality, no matter how much YECists may protest.

Which is not what the text says. This is no different from what the YECists do, sticking their own ideas into the text. “Heavens” in “heavens and Earth” isn’t about space, it’s about the unreachable realm above the Earth, especially the realm where things are non-material, being spirit rather than matter. Then “heavens and Earth” is a phrase that means “everything that exists (seen and/or unseen)”.

Again, this is reading into the text. The ancient Hebrews had no idea that stars were anything but radiant spiritual beings, and if asked about elements might have thought that there were four.

It’s not even doing that. Neither literary genre used in the opening Creation story is meant to tell “how God saw it”; they’re meant to convey truth in conceptual ways the audience will understand. Thus in the one genre YHWH-Elohim is a conquering king establishing His kingdom while in the other He is a divine being setting up, filling, and occupying His temple – all while using the Egyptian creation story but modifying it to demote all the Egyptian gods to nothing but created servants of YHWH-Elohim.

This is true; the Hebrew term אָֽרֶץ (air-etz) means “land” and in context indicates the world known to Noah – and there is evidence for such an event. We should rejoice in that evidence, noting that it affirms what the scriptures actually tell us.

There is usually a core of fact in the more narrative portions, they’re mythologized history. That’s the case with the Flood and with the Tower of Babel (though there’s more history in the Tower story).

And those meanings are closer to what the original literary genre intended than a literal reading. For the layman, they’re a better way to get an understanding, especially since the concepts behind the literary genres tend to be rather mind-bending to the modern reader.

1 Like
239

And either Jesus was right when He spoke of being “weary and heavy-burdened”, or Creation.com is right when they point to Genesis. Which is it?

240

The irony here is that Genesis is foundational to a lot of theology, but Creation.com doesn’t seem interested in that theology. Genesis isn’t about history, at least until Abraham, it’s about the cosmic spiritual situation and about how God intends to relate to His people, which is based on why He made us. It’s about how spiritual beings that God intended to teach us rebelled and led us astray, about God’s response to that and what that means for us, about God’s attitude towards those rebels and towards us, and about what He intends to do about the mess.

It doesn’t care in the least how old the world is, it cares about the world having fallen into the hands of rebels and about God’s intent to rescue us and put things straight.

2 Likes