The Genesis One Local Creation Theory

If Noah’s Flood was local, it points to a Gen. 1:2 local flood. The Spirit was hovering over a local place and not zooming over a planet covered with water. That the Six Days each only had one evening and morning points to a local area. If it spoke of the entire globe, there would always be morning and evening! And therefore each day would’ve had many evenings and mornings.

1 Like

Any form of local creation would remove God from the rest of the earth. It is one thing to allow Hinduism because it runs parrallel with Judaism in terms of age and is far enough removed geographically to allow for cultural division.(but the same God) It is something else to claim that the Jewish God is/was a tribal God and therefore not Universal.


1 Like

I would agree with you, MIke. While we can then go on to rabbit trails as to literal, historic, or metaphoric stories, if we stay on topic, I think it is a great post to discuss how and why the Bible is centered on Israel rather than the mass of humanity unknown to the authors.

I think the Old Testament, while having value and meaning to all humanity, is largely the story of Israel, with Adam and Eve, Noah, and the geneologies pretty much being a linage connecting God and creation to Abraham, which then has a much more historical flavor.

The Bible charts man’s understanding of God from a personal, through tribal to universal. But, there is a difference between understanding and factual reality. Clearly the Old Testament writers were not aware of distant countries like India, China or even Europe. Would God ignore these places? Or would He interact within the cultures that develop? Intrinsically there is nothing wrong with Mother Earth and Father Sky but it does not sit well with science. But, any belief system that promotes Godly behaviour? Why should it not be from God? (We misunderstood the religious significance of scalping, calling it barbaric)
Christianity is notoriously homophobic. Perhaps because to admit any other practice is valid would be self defeating?


Interesting questions, however, I (personally) don’t find them convincing.

As to the first question, why ought godly behaviour be the marker of truthfulness? Especially when Jesus (John 14:6) and the Apostles (Acts 4:12; Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:2) made a person and not behaviour the criterion of truth.

Regarding your second question, the reverse could be equally true: “Why should it be from God?” If the ministry of Jesus tells us anything it is that God is more concerned with inward transformation than outward moral conformity:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. ~ Matthew 23:27-28 (NIV2011)

The former does not imply the latter, or vice versa. I’m sure there are homophobic universalists and gay/queer religious exclusivists.

1 Like

The Spirit is not omnipresent? He may reveal himself more at a particular location than elsewhere, but that does not negate his omnipresence. Was God confined to the burning bush at the time so that his presence didn’t exist elsewhere?

1 Like

Give me a good counter argument then.

If the truth of Christianity is proved by its continuance, what about the other ancient religions?

Are you prepared to claim that 3000+ years of Hinduism was for naught? Or that a Bhuddist, who attempts to live by the code is wasting his time? He is sinful because he does not accept Christianity that has been thrust upon him? A person whose family has had beliefs for generations must turn their back on them… Because Christianity supercededs all? Is that the God we worship? One who dismisses 95% of the world for not being born into a Christian family? Or who lived before AD33? I am not sure that I could worship such a God.


You are the one making the argument, the burden of proof lies with you, Richard, not me.

The truth of Christianity is proven, not by its lifespan, but by the resurrection of Jesus. This has always been the hill on which the Apostles were willing to die:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve…

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. ~ 1 Corinthians 15: 1-5, 14-15

I know of no theologian who claims that Christianity is true because it is old.


I am not sure, but I think there is some talking past each other here. I think the real question for me as a Christian is not why I believe that Christianity (as I believe it) is from God, but whether other forms of Christianity (which I don’t think are completely true), or other religions (Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, …), may also have a direct link to God.
To begin to address this question, consider the size of God. Some will argue that God is not infinite; however, I think it is absolutely true that some aspects of God are infinite, in the sense of being totally without limit. God’s love is one thing that I think most Christians would agree does not have any limits.
Next question, from mathematics: If God, or some critically important characteristic of God, is infinite, what fraction of God (or that characteristic) is captured in any one religion’s complete theology? The answer from mathematics is clear: Mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total, since all human theology is finite.
In this forum, I would think that many of us can understand that there is room for our infinite God to come to different people in different finite partial descriptions. The simple mathematical fact is that every single human who has ever existed could have had his or her finite brain completely filled with facts about the infinite characteristic of God, different facts from every other human, and still the sum total of all human knowledge of the infinite total would be mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total infinite knowledge of God.
This means that there is room for God to reveal a different (though often in the real religions we can observe on this earth a partially overlapping) part of His infinite total being to different groups of people. Has this really happened? Only God knows for sure, but I know that it is not my right to claim that my important, but very small in comparison to the total, knowledge of God is the only true knowledge of God!
From my understanding of the bible, and my Christian faith, I have to believe God when He says He loves everyone, when He says Jesus died for everyone. And I have to trust Jesus that He can do what He needs to do. And I also have to listen when I am told that I should witness to others what I believe. But none of this says I can tell God what God can or cannot do.

Maybe the Great Commission suggests otherwise?


@Hornetnester7r I like your way of thinking!

Incorrect. The suggestion was not about making God and His creative efforts local, but only that the Genesis account of creation was local. Thus it would only remove the delusion some religion has over exclusive rights to truth about God. Such a delusion effectively shrinks God to a tiny portion of the earth and universe – a small god for small minds.

Omnipresence does not require uniformity. Uniformity is the delusion/rhetoric of cultural imperialists and those seeking to use religion as a tool of domination over others.

I don’t think so. All the universe is a testimony to the fact that God LOVES diversity NOT uniformity! The lesson is that ALL of God’s creation is of value and has something to offer. Yes Christianity has something to offer the entire world but no this does not mean there is nothing we can learn from other people and religions also.

1 Like

God has different densities? :grin:

The last bastion of a failed argument.

Who was talking theology?


my goodness that is a huge streatch of the imagination…have you read the books of Daniel and of Revelation? These two clearly do not agree with your very very bad theological claim!

Christ and all of his apostles in the Gospels spoke of Gods wish for the Gospel to be taken to ALL THE WOLRD. The New Testament speaks at great length about the Second Coming as being a World wide event. The point is, the Bible is very specifically an account of mankind…not israelites. The jewish nation didnt even exist for the first 2 millenia of Biblical history, and the last 2 millenia are about Gentiles and not jews…so we have 2/3rds of the Bible story that are not even about Israel!

This is the entire problem with foolish doctrinal statements…they ignore overwhelming consistency of the Bible throughout its pages. The New Testament is an extension of the Old Testament…it is not apart from it. I do not understand how it is that you do not realise that theological fact about the Bible and attempt to construct such things as a result? You claim YECers twist the bible statements…what you are doing here is completely rewriting half of it!

I agree with mitchellmckain, but would state it more strongly. The Great Commission in no way tells us what God has revealed to any other person, nor does it restrict God (or Jesus) in His ability to relate to any person. The Great Commission is instruction to us Christians, not a statement of restriction on what God can do, or even what God has done.
Since I believe that God really does love everyone, I have no choice but to believe that God does not put anyone into a position in this world where that person would not have any opportunity to relate properly (in God’s sight) to God. In the Great Commission, Jesus asks us, if we truly love Him, to help others have a good relationship with God, or to improve their relationships with God.
On the diversity vice uniformity point that mitchell makes, I believe that this is one of the many ways in which God comes to us humans where we are, rather than demanding that we go to Him where He lives.

I think the Spirit hovered over the rock on the Temple Mount, where the Holy of Holies would eventually be. I think “tohu wa bohu” should be translated, “hidden and useless.” God fixed this problem when He said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let dry land appear.”

The ertz went from hidden and useless to revealed and useful.

You are so funny. Context. In the context of this discussion, we seems we are looking at the text as a historical or an origins story document, and it is obviously written by, about, and from the perspective of the Jewish people. Does it have meaning beyond that? Sure. But from their perspective, the whole world consisted of their region and what they knew of it.

1 Like

The Bible presents universal truths, but they were communicated to a particular people in a particular place and time, with a particular culture. Part of that communication always included the call to be a light to the rest of the world. Yet God’s approach was curiously evolutionary, gradually building the information available through the process of revelation. There are interpretations of Genesis 1-3 that see them as describing the preparation of the Holy Land rather than being intended to describe the entire earth. I am not personally convinced that these chapters are strictly local in their focus, but The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1 (The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One | Kregel ) brings out, among several other factors, the symbolic significance of the land in Genesis 1 and how it ties into themes throughout the rest of Scripture.

As to other religions and cultures, there are two extremes that are popular but contrary to the biblical message. One is an isolationism that claims that everything not from the Bible is bad. But God has made a good creation and given gifts to all people. Also, God’s law is not a set of arbitrary tests of loyalty; it is what is good for us. It doesn’t take all that much sense to figure out that “do not kill”, “do not steal”, etc. are good ideas for a functional society, for example. Likewise, anyone can examine creation and draw valid scientific conclusions if they rely on the evidence and not on what they want to be true. The reverse error is to claim that all other positions are just as good. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus is the only way of salvation; however, there are many possible ways to Jesus. If someone insists on trusting what they achieve, and refuses to accept the work of Jesus, then they are not saved, just as someone who refuses to accept a parachute and trusts in their own ability to jump out of an airplane is in trouble. Given the emphasis on God’s justice, we can be confident that everyone is treated fairly; the traditional theological formulations that I am familiar with state that God can reach those who do not have an ordinary human opportunity for faith (such as those dying in infancy or having severe mental restrictions). C. S. Lewis’s The Last Battle envisions a similar opportunity for one raised in a different religion, as but one of many examples of speculation on the topic. That should not create complacency about missions; it would be better for people to have as good a grasp as possible of the truth. But it does somewhat address complaining about others being left out.

1 Like