Which came first, the Earth or the Sun?

[chisel]

One needs proof that 'the Genesis creation account' is not a symbolic bit of the Bible.

Do you ask for proof on every bit of text you read in the Bible or just the parts that you'd prefer to be simbolic?
Did Jesus really turn water into wine? What about the resurrection? Did that actually happen?

Have you read my first post on this thread? I have explained in detail why I believe that the six days of creation were six days.


Honestly though. Genesis starts with the words "In the beginning God..." Am I totally insane for thinking the text that follows would be a description of what God did in the beginning?

The creation account ends with, "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished..." Am I mad for reading the preceding bits thinking that "thus" is how God....er...made the heavens and the earth?

As I said, the intent of Genesis is to offer and account for how God made everything. I believe it, and I believe most of orthodox judaism as well as Christian history interpreted in it's simple plain straightforward literal form.

The very fact that you're attempting to suggest we interpreted Genesis non-literally is an admission that Genesis literally contradicts you. You require Genesis to be simbolic and that's the bottomline.

And the thing that boggles my mind is why, since we as Christians don't need to accomodate evolution and it's philosophies of uniformitarianism and materialism. It isn't based on good observable science, so the whole exercise of desperately searching for time in Genesis, by contriving day-ages, and gap-theories are unecessary.

You have the finest keenest double-edged sword sheathed on your hip, eager to slay the foolish philosophies of this world. Why do you choose compromise instead? Are you intimidated by Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and Eugenie Scott?

[Athanasius]

Do you ask for proof on every bit of text you read in the Bible or just the parts that you'd prefer to be simbolic?
Did Jesus really turn water into wine? What about the resurrection? Did that actually happen?

Non-Christians tend to ask for proof, considering this is the Apologetics and Evangelism forum.

As for miracles and the resurrection, there are a whole host of influential people who think not. To name a few: John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, Robert J. Miller, John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman. If someone were to ask me 'So-and-so doesn't believe in Jesus' miracles or the Resurrection, what is your view on what they have to say?' I'm not going to say, 'Read the text again and see what it plainly says, you must be blind!' No, I'm going to try to provide them some sort of proof to read Jesus' miracles and Resurrection as literal historical events, rather than take the view of the people mentioned above. Of course this requires, in part, showing that the accounts aren't metaphors or parabolic in nature.

[wenlock]

Genesis starts with the words "In the beginning God..." Am I totally insane for thinking the text that follows would be a description of what God did in the beginning?

Not at all. But what follows could be a spiritual allegory of what God did, rather than a literal, scientific account; the former one would expect, and the latter one would not expect, given the nature of the whole Bible, which is not intended to be used for scientific purposes.

The creation account ends with, "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished..." Am I mad for reading the preceding bits thinking that "thus" is how God....er...made the heavens and the earth?

The same reply applies to what precedes.

There is no proof that the text is literal from this literary style, or, I suggest, from any literary style, as is often claimed. The need for proof still exists.

[chisel]

Non-Christians tend to ask for proof, considering this is the Apologetics and Evangelism forum.

Yes, and I have provided that, however in this case you'll notice that Wenlock was the one asking for proof. I don't think he claims to be a non-believer.

[CoffeeCat]

Alright.

Everyone will notice that posts have been edited or removed -- which is unfortunate, when many of you spent so much time on them. What happened to this thread, guys?

1. The OP's question got TOTALLY derailed by personal comments and a debate on whether or not we take Genesis literally. Not acceptable. Furthermore, complaining about the A&E guidelines in this forum is not acceptable.

2. Who here hasn't had the chance to read our forum rules and guidelines? If you haven't, then read them now.

Take especial note of this: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=182978

RETURNED Forum Focus: Please Read Before Posting - Summer 2009

Effective immediately, the leadership will enforce that this forum is to return the focus to Biblical Christian Apologetics and Evangelism.

Discussion of literal Biblical Creation Account is permitted only, not arguments against the literal Biblical Creation Account from Science, Philosophy, etc.

Please adjust your future posts accordingly or they will be deleted without further notification.

///

This is why posts were deleted. And they'll continue to be deleted if any focus other than the literal interpretation of the Biblical account is the focus here.

I am re-opening this thread. Focus on what you need to, folks: the OP's question. Use scripture in your answers. THAT'S what this forum is for.

Any questions, concerns, or complaints ought to go to Chat to Moderators -- so kindly bring them there for me, as needed.

Thanks.

[firstpeterone]

According to science

?what do you mean, "according to science"?

God is not best known as a science. Should He be proven like a theorem. God is a Father that gives perfect gifts. Blessed are those who believe and haven't seen. He will have mercy on who He will have mercy, the potter at the wheel creating as He wills. God is truthful and let every man be a liar. God's word is "science" and everything else that differs from God's word is in error. Can God create a sun that doesn't give light? Could God have created our sun but withheld it from giving it's light until He thought the timing was right? I don't know. But I do know that all of these things are good things to think about, if they help us grow closer to God and know Him better. Be careful of the things that take you farther away from God and allow you to doubt. Enjoy God's Holy Spirit today, ask Him about Creation and the other things you are interested in, and listen as He teaches.

[timmyb]

Non-Christians tend to ask for proof, considering this is the Apologetics and Evangelism forum.

As for miracles and the resurrection, there are a whole host of influential people who think not. To name a few: John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, Robert J. Miller, John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman. If someone were to ask me 'So-and-so doesn't believe in Jesus' miracles or the Resurrection, what is your view on what they have to say?' I'm not going to say, 'Read the text again and see what it plainly says, you must be blind!' No, I'm going to try to provide them some sort of proof to read Jesus' miracles and Resurrection as literal historical events, rather than take the view of the people mentioned above. Of course this requires, in part, showing that the accounts aren't metaphors or parabolic in nature.

so true, the Bible is a book that should be scientifically proven, it only solidifies the truth of it. Otherwise to just blindly believe a book you don't even know the orgins of is just as effective as say the Koran or the Upanishads. We serve a God who is alive, the Bible is the testimony of a living God.

So, proof is necessary.

[timmyb]

but to ask the question which came first... I will go to what the Bible says...

1. darkness was on the face of the deep...

2. God said let there be light...

the sequence of events is baffling

[GreekAsianPanda]

so true, the Bible is a book that should be scientifically proven, it only solidifies the truth of it. Otherwise to just blindly believe a book you don't even know the orgins of is just as effective as say the Koran or the Upanishads. We serve a God who is alive, the Bible is the testimony of a living God.

So, proof is necessary.

I agree completely. If the Bible said that it is ok to drink your water if a fly lands in your drink because one wing has a disease and the other wing has an antidote for the disease, would we (if we were unbelievers) accept the Bible as true? Probably not.
(By the way, I got the fly thing from the Quran.)

[Philemon9]

Yes, and I have provided that

heh, I think I missed that part.

[Athanasius]

Yes, and I have provided that, however in this case you'll notice that Wenlock was the one asking for proof. I don't think he claims to be a non-believer.

Proof... Not that I see.

[chisel]

heh, I think I missed that part.

I have explained why I believe in a six day creation in my first post on this thread, as I've mentioned before, but, it is quite obvious that you'll dismiss any proof for a six day creation because it is against your evolutionary bias. 'Making' Genesis non-literal in servitude of extra-biblical philosophies (materialism, uniformitarianism) is called eisegesis.

The fact remains: all the scriptural data seems to indicate a 6 day creation of the evening/morning day/night kind.

Apart from misquoting 2Peter 3:8 you have absolutely no data supporting your evolutionary long age view.

Just because you don't like what the text says, doesn't automatically make it allegory or poetry or metaphor or whatever

[chisel]

Proof... Not that I see.

In the Creation of Eve thread you've shown that you'll even call Jesus a liar for the sake of your beliefs, yes? Unfortunately I couldn't respond at that time because the thread was closed.

I didn't realize I was avoiding points. In any case, since you seem to think it's a strong point, I'll give it thirty seconds.

If you take Matthew 19:4 to literally mean Adam and Eve were created 'from the beginning' then you will actually contradict Genesis 1:1-31 (26-31 being the creation of man) as in Genesis we find Adam and Eve being created at the end of creation. Thus, no matter which interpretive framework you adopt, Adam and Eve were created "toward the end".

I don't think Jesus is wrong, I think your position is.

In Matthew 19:4 Jesus states that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning.

You dismiss the argument by stating that Adam and Eve were created in the end.

Then you state (to save face), that you don't believe Jesus is wrong, even though that's exactly what you imply.

By the way, the passage isn't referring to the creation process, but to creation in terms of 'that which was created'.

Contradicting Jesus while reinterpreting scripture to suit cosmic evolution, how much more of the Bible are you still going to deny in servitude to your beliefs?

...but here's the thing. The Bible is the most cohesive book in the world. It's in many ways like the robe Jesus wore. It is without seam, a single unit. If you plan to add anything onto it, you have to tear it, and as soon as you start tugging at a thread, it starts coming apart in it's entirety.

You're desperately trying to import cosmic evolution into the Bible, so you figure, "ahh, we'll just interpret the six days as 'ages'. No biggie". (Which by the way is a hermeneutical fallacy called: unwarranted expansion of the symantic field)

But then you find that if you do that, you have to get rid of the global flood as well, so you commit another hermeneutic fallacy thinking that you're good. But then you find that you're contradicting Jesus in Matthew, which you deny, but you know it is so, and that's why you said, "I don't think Jesus is wrong, directly after you said He is wrong".

In the end you find yourself naked and embarrased patching holes everywhere.

I've seen this phenomenon in many cults and everywhere people attempt to sew new ideas onto the Word of God.

[Athanasius]

I have explained why I believe in a six day creation in my first post on this thread...

Right, which is not necessarily the same as providing proof. That's the difference between explaining one's beliefs and giving good reasons why others should adopt those same beliefs over alternative explanations. I'm not challenging anything you've said (as you seem to think).

[chisel]

Right, which is not necessarily the same as providing proof. That's the difference between explaining one's beliefs and giving good reasons why others should adopt those same beliefs over alternative explanations. I'm not challenging anything you've said (as you seem to think).

As I said to Philemon9, all the data in scripture indicates a six day creation of the day/night, evening/morning kind.
No data in scripture indicates the contrary.

More than that I cannot show you, because you know full well that nobody can prove empirically that you must believe the Genesis account as it is written. That's why non-literal interpretations are the easiest cop-out there is, because it's unverifiable, not so?

There's nothing more that I can do for you, but what's true is that you don't believe in long ages because of anything you've read in the Bible and neither do you hold the idea that Genesis isn't literally true because of what you read in the Bible, but because of what people have taught you and you have believed it.

Can you say with Paul, "Let God be true and every man a liar?"
Can you?