Genesis Creation

[ChristineM]

OK, I'll bite.

1Cor 6:14,

By His - power - God - raised the Lord from the dead, and He will raise us also.
​

Yes, God raised Jesus from the dead, but how does that say He can do anything He wants? Just because someone can do one thing or another, doesn't mean they can do anything at all they want to do. I can drink water, but that doesn't mean I can fly like a bird.

Rev 21:3,

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling place - of God is with - man, and He will dwell with them. - They will be His people, and - God Himself will be with them as their God.
​

It's a good verse, but I'm not really seeing how it says God can know and do anything He wants. It just says God will dwell with humans in the new heaven and earth that will set up when Jesus returns as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Heb 4:14-16,

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son - of God, let us hold firmly to what we profess.

15 For - we do not have a high priest - who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.

16 - Let us then approach the throne - of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
​

Where's the omniscience, all knowing, all powerful, doing whatever He wants, God here? It's talking about one very specific thing and it's not any of those things.

Here's just one verse that makes my point:

Gen 6:6,

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why, if God can do anything and everything, would He have done something He regretted and grieves His heart? Makes way more sense that the creatures He created with FREE WILL went against His wishes and there was nothing He could do about it. Well, there actually was. That would be Jesus, but it took God 6,000 years to convince some human (Jesus) to actually obey God, not because they were forced to do so by God's "omniscient power," but because that person voluntarily obeyed God's wishes.

An honest reading of the scriptures will clearly show that God did not have the power to simply wave a magic wand over the earth and make everything like He originally intended in the Garden of Eden. No, He had to work with humans and that is certainly a huge limitation. It might be like herding a million cats across the desert with a million hungry coyotes in hot pursuit! The fact He was able to convince a man like Jesus to willingly obey is a real testament to His true ability.

BTW, at least with me, it is probably best to avoid the straw man accusation. I immediately get the feeling that nothing more substantial could have been said by the poster. I see the well worn accusation as the actual straw man in the discussion.

1Cor 6:14,

By His - power - God - raised the Lord from the dead, and He will raise us also.

Sound pretty omnipotent to me
But of course you may interpretat the verses differently to other people, thats tbe thing with the bible, it can mean whatever you want it to mean

When you post a straw man i will identify it as such, who you are is irrelevant

 

[thomas t]

Looking at this image, it is obvious that it is not an accurate representation of the actual universe. That can not be denied.

look at 2 Peter 3:5-6.
The earth that Genesis was describing does not exist anymore.
It perished.
So I disagree with your whole analysis.
Genesis as I see it is an accurate dipiction of the earth: the old edition of it.

 

[Heyo]

look at 2 Peter 3:5-6.
The earth that Genesis was describing does not exist anymore.
It perished.
So I disagree with your whole analysis.
Genesis as I see it is an accurate dipiction of the earth: the old edition of it.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
― Douglas Adams

 

[Samael_Khan]

Why is it not reasonable? The god of the bible is after all said to be omni everything. He would obviously know how to teach quantum mechanics to bronze age people, particularly as it seems they believed everything he is said to have said and done. Such teaching would be simple to such a being would it not?

If the message of the Bible has got to do with the human condition why would it be necessary at all to mention natural scientific concepts that are not related to that? He should have rather taught about psychology and better way of handling human interaction so that people can understand how humans work. Certainly the Bible does attempt to deal with human psychology, but in a very uninspiring and simple minded way which is reminiscent of the ancient world. He could have taught people how to deal with depression, gender dysphoria, and other psychological concepts that people didn't understand at the time which would have been more beneficial to mankind. But rather sin is used as an excuse and the mentally ill are considered demon possessed. Certainly he could have done a much better job in that department.

 

[metis]

To those who insist that Genesis must conform to our modern science, I would issue a challenge to come up with the curriculum that would have "enlightened" the ancient Near East on how the world came to be and the structure of the universe.

I don't think that's the main problem though. It's more along the line, imo, that too many blindly use a literalistic approach to scripture as if they're reading an objective science or history textbook.

Could it be that 3,000 years from now our image of the universe will appear as quaint and gullible to the then modern scientist as that of the ancient Near East appears to the scientists of today?

To an extent, yes, as more and more evidence will come out. But I doubt very much that the general picture of the BB is likely to be radically different.

 

[Samael_Khan]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
― Douglas Adams

A quote from one of the most influential books in my life..... I think. Is this from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

 

[Samael_Khan]

1Cor 6:14,

By His - power - God - raised the Lord from the dead, and He will raise us also.

Sound pretty omnipotent to me
But of course you may interpretat the verses differently to other people, thats tbe thing with the bible, it can mean whatever you want it to mean

When you post a straw man i will identify it as such, who you are is irrelevant

How does the power to raise the dead show omnipotence?

Meaning

omnipotence

1. the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

It doesn't at all indicate that he has unlimited power. Could it rather be seemingly unlimited to us mere mortals maybe but not actually so (hence a very great power)?

 

[ChristineM]

If the message of the Bible has got to do with the human condition why would it be necessary at all to mention natural scientific concepts that are not related to that? He should have rather taught about psychology and better way of handling human interaction so that people can understand how humans work. Certainly the Bible does attempt to deal with human psychology, but in a very uninspiring and simple minded way which is reminiscent of the ancient world. He could have taught people how to deal with depression, gender dysphoria, and other psychological concepts that people didn't understand at the time which would have been more beneficial to mankind. But rather sin is used as an excuse and the mentally ill are considered demon possessed. Certainly he could have done a much better job in that department.

I was replying solely to the OP. But you are right, if a god made this and us he/she/it would have made a much better job of it

 

[Nimos]

To those who insist that Genesis must conform to our modern science

Don't know how many young earth creationist are on the forum. But guess its directed at them

On a related note, lately I've been seeing a lot of scientific news about radically new ideas on how the universe came to be. Old universally accepted ideas of cosmology and cosmogony are being questioned in light of these new observations. Could it be that 3,000 years from now our image of the universe will appear as quaint and gullible to the then modern scientist as that of the ancient Near East appears to the scientists of today?

It will be different for sure, but I don't think it will be as severe as from back then to now.

Because we have developed the scientific method, which in itself is progressive, so no one expect to just reach the truth out of the blue, but that our knowledge and understanding is constantly expanded, so even scientists today probably have an idea of what we know and what is just a theory.

So much like people today (despite it not being as long ago) wouldn't point fingers at former scientists, even though they got a lot of things wrong. And I think the same goes with those that wrote Genesis.

Surely they were wrong, but then again, they had no tools for measuring things or method for really validating things and they as well, relied on former human knowledge of what was considered to be true. Imagine us today having to try to explain the world, if we removed all the scientific tools and knowledge. Then it might not sound as stupid that if water drops from the sky, there must be water up there somewhere, where the hell would it come from otherwise?

 

[ChristineM]

How does the power to raise the dead show omnipotence?

Meaning

omnipotence

1. the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

It doesn't at all indicate that he has unlimited power. Could it rather be seemingly unlimited to us mere mortals maybe but not actually so (hence a very great power)?

I guess it takes a fair bit of power to raise the dead.

 

[Heyo]

Why gum up the message with irrelevant information that they never could have understood anyway?

Exactly. Why include some made-up story humans would eventually debunk? Silence is golden.

Could it be that 3,000 years from now our image of the universe will appear as quaint and gullible to the then modern scientist as that of the ancient Near East appears to the scientists of today?

No. Scientists of the future will understand that the scientists of today did their best with the data and methods they had. We also still admire Eratosthenes for calculating the Earths diameter in the 3 century BC. We don't find his methods quaint.
We find the methods of the authors of Genesis quaint because they just made everything up without any research.

 

[Heyo]

A quote from one of the most influential books in my life..... I think. Is this from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

[rrobs]

Question: if you admit that the Genesis account is "not an accurate representation of the actual universe," what convinces you that there was an actual Adam an Eve who "screwed up" and required Jesus to come fix it?

Good question.

First of all, as I said, how the ancient Near East folks viewed cosmology, has absolutely nothing to do with God's main mission which was to eventually redeem mankind through the man Jesus Christ. Rather than muddy up the waters with irrelevant information, God simply let the Jews think just like the rest of the people at that time. Whether the ancient folks knew about quarks, leptons, atoms, singularities, etc., or not, had no bearing whatsoever on the main subject of the scriptures, i.e. Jesus Christ.

But besides that, what the ancient Near Easterner thought of the universe was completely in accord with their observations. It was good science at that time. Had they had atom smashers at their disposal, they would have gotten more accurate observations and hence a better model of the universe.

Also, as I averred in the OP, our model of the universe will probably be as lame to the 41st century scientist as the ancient Near Eastern view is to us.

 

[rrobs]

Well JC was much later, in a separate book. But unless you are saying the Old Testament is false, what I said stands.

It doesn't matter when Jesus came. The main point is that he was a perfect representation of God. If Jesus wouldn't do something, then neither would God. Couple that together with the verse that says Jesus did nothing but good and you have to somehow square the OT portrayal of God with that of the NT. You just have to dig a little deeper than tradition has gone.

Have you considered the possibility that due to various restraints, God was simply not able to reveal the "real" Him until Jesus did that? Have you ever thought that the representation of the OT God was limited by the understanding of the ancient people, that God was simply not able to fully explain Himself until Jesus came along? You'd be getting closer to the truth if you did that.

 

[rrobs]

1Cor 6:14,

By His - power - God - raised the Lord from the dead, and He will raise us also.

Sound pretty omnipotent to me
But of course you may interpretat the verses differently to other people, thats tbe thing with the bible, it can mean whatever you want it to mean

When you post a straw man i will identify it as such, who you are is irrelevant

Words have a definite meaning. Otherwise meaningful communication would not be possible. If everyone had their own definition of omnipotence the word would be meaningless in any conversation.

I think it safe to say we could all agree that an authority such as Webster's dictionary would give a meaning to words that we could all agree on and understand. To that end, the Webster's definition of omnipotence is:

"having virtually unlimited authority or influence "
​

I do believe I showed several verses that shows God has neither unlimited authority nor unlimited influence. He is in fact limited by the degree to which humans believe what He says. He can certainly heal stage 4 cancer, but He can't force the healing. He can only try to convince the patient that He can heal them. If that person takes it to heart, they would be healed. Therefore the healing is a partnership between God and people.

I would be hesitant to say that God having to work with people to bring about His will is hardly, "unlimited authority or influence." Hence, while tradition says God is omnipotent, the scriptures themselves say otherwise. At least that's what they say if simple words have any meaning.

RE: strong man. Go ahead and use the straw man accusatin, but like I said, I take it as meaning you have nothing of substance to say. In general I see that word used here at RF a lot, but I'm not sure most even knows what it really is. Seems like they don't in any case.

 

[ChristineM]

Words have a definite meaning. Otherwise meaningful communication would not be possible. If everyone had their own definition of omnipotence the word would be meaningless in any conversation.

I think it safe to say we could all agree that an authority such as Webster's dictionary would give a meaning to words that we could all agree on and understand. To that end, the Webster's definition of omnipotence is:

"having virtually unlimited authority or influence "
​

I do believe I showed several verses that shows God has neither unlimited authority nor unlimited influence. He is in fact limited by the degree to which humans believe what He says. He can certainly heal stage 4 cancer, but He can't force the healing. He can only try to convince the patient that He can heal them. If that person takes it to heart, they would be healed. Therefore the healing is a partnership between God and people.

I would be hesitant to say that God having to work with people to bring about His will is hardly, "unlimited authority or influence." Hence, while tradition says God is omnipotent, the scriptures themselves say otherwise. At least that's what they say if simple words have any meaning.

RE: strong man. Go ahead and use the straw man accusatin, but like I said, I take it as meaning you have nothing of substance to say. In general I see that word used here at RF a lot, but I'm not sure most even knows what it really is. Seems like they don't in any case.

Words like "truth"? Meaning what is true or in accordance with fact or reality. OR... Whatever religious people believe is true?

Or how about omnipotence in the OED, the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

So no, i don't think we can all agree on your chosen definition.

And of course there are several verses that say he has unlimited power. Example
Revelation 19:6 - And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. KJV

Looks pretty conclusive to me

And you are going a long long way to deny your gods teaching abilities

 

[Left Coast]

Good question.

First of all, as I said, how the ancient Near East folks viewed cosmology, has absolutely nothing to do with God's main mission which was to eventually redeem mankind through the man Jesus Christ. Rather than muddy up the waters with irrelevant information, God simply let the Jews think just like the rest of the people at that time. Whether the ancient folks knew about quarks, leptons, atoms, singularities, etc., or not, had no bearing whatsoever on the main subject of the scriptures, i.e. Jesus Christ.

But besides that, what the ancient Near Easterner thought of the universe was completely in accord with their observations. It was good science at that time. Had they had atom smashers at their disposal, they would have gotten more accurate observations and hence a better model of the universe.

Also, as I averred in the OP, our model of the universe will probably be as lame to the 41st century scientist as the ancient Near Eastern view is to us.

That was basically just a restatement of your OP. I understand you acknowledge the Genesis account of things is not accurate.

My question was, given that you acknowledge that, what convinces you that another aspect of the same story, the notion of two original humans who "screwed up" and that we need Jesus to come fix, is accurate? Your evidence must not be Genesis, since you admit that's not accurate. So what is it?

 

[rrobs]

look at 2 Peter 3:5-6.
The earth that Genesis was describing does not exist anymore.
It perished.
So I disagree with your whole analysis.
Genesis as I see it is an accurate dipiction of the earth: the old edition of it.

I think I understand what you are saying and it's a valid point. At what point in Genesis do you see God recreating the old earth? I'd say Gen 1:2 begins the reconstruction of the first earth. That is text from which I make my argument.

In any case, how does the truth of the first heaven and earth perishing have any bearing on my original post? Everything I said is based on this, the current, earth as described in Genesis. I simply compared that with the generally accepted view that all ancient Near Eastern folks had regarding the universe. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Genesis and many of the Babylonia, Sumerian, akkadian, et. al. texts regarding cosmogony have much in common. There is no indication in the scriptures that Israel viewed the material universe in any way different that the rest of the folks at that time.

However, there is one rather huge difference, namely that the scriptures declare the one true God to be the sole creator of the universe. On that point the scriptures depart from the other ancient accounts. Of course that makes our God way bigger than all the other gods.

Let's say you are a missionary getting ready to go to a tribe that believes in polygamy. Now from Genesis chapter 1 you know that God wants one woman and one man to be married. You intend on converting them to that view. But you've talked to other missionaries who went to this tribe before you. Many of them told you that they immediately got ejected off the island when they told the tribe on the first day they were there that the men could no longer marry more than one woman. Would you then go there and on the first day and tell them they couldn't marry more than one woman? I wouldn't. I'd instead preach the goodness of God to them and believe that over time they'd see for themselves the value of one man and one woman. I trust you see the analogy.

In general, I'd say that when we see Jesus face to face in the coming third edition of the earth, we will learn a whole bunch more about this current heaven and earth (including how they came to be) than what God was able to reveal to us in Genesis. In other words, Genesis is certainly true, but it's not necessarily all the truth. God has to work with our understanding. I think it fair to say, He knows a lot more about this planet than He's told us. Like I said, His main concern in giving us the scriptures was pointing out our need for redemption and the redeemer who would do that. After all, now that we know more scientific detail as to how the earth came to be, it has zero affect on our redemption. While the scriptures do contain real science, science was not the focus of the scriptures. God's love for a fallen generation is the real subject.

 

[Etritonakin]

The only part of Genesis that refers to the creation of the universe is the first line -which does not state the heavens and Earth were created all at the same time -or instantaneously -and which actually has nothing to do with what happened during the seven "days".

There is just a general statement that God created both the heavens and the Earth.

THEN there is a general statement that the Earth had become waste and ruin for some (there) unspecified reason -to an unspecified degree
-EXCEPT that it's state was such that what followed needed to be done to repair it.

Any amount of time could have transpired from the iniation of the universe -completion of the Earth -and it's becoming ruined.

What follows is not an initial creation.
(Think of what would need to be done after man gets through doing his worst -and add maybe something to knock the Earth and other bodies out of sync [which even earthquakes do slightly])
The Earth and deep were already there.
Waters had to be separated from dry land.
Juxtaposition of Earth in relation to celestial bodies needed tweaking, etc.
(There is a difference between made and made TO).
Flora and fauna were restored in preparation for man.

Most modern yet traditional ideas about Genesis are not from an unbiased study of what it actually says and what definitions allow -or in context of the rest of scripture -which indicates the beliefs that the heavens and earth were by a process rather than an instantaneous poof.

They are just what people heard or were taught.

 

[rrobs]

Words like "truth"? Meaning what is true or in accordance with fact or reality. OR... Whatever religious people believe is true?

Or how about omnipotence in the OED, the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

So no, i don't think we can all agree on your chosen definition.

And of course there are several verses that say he has unlimited power. Example
Revelation 19:6 - And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. KJV

Looks pretty conclusive to me

And you are going a long long way to deny your gods teaching abilities

I'm talking about truth that is in accordance with reality. Facts have a way of changing, so I'm not talking about facts. Reality, and therefore truth, does not change.

OK, you can't (more like won't) accept my definition, which is not actually "my" definition. If you don't like that definition, complain to Webster. In any case, care to elaborate on the "real" meaning of omnipotence?

The word "omnipotent" in Revelation 19:6 is the Greek work "pantokrator" and it means almighty. Of the ten times it is used, this is the only time they translated it as "omnipotent."

On the other hand, I've not told the whole story here. God in fact will get His was in the end. He will recreate this heaven and earth, and the equity and justice we all so desperately want will absolutely come to pass. But, as I said, to get there, God must work with people, which is obviously a serious impediment. Many times God had to try something different when His first attempt at something failed. Hardly seems to fit any notion of omnipotence to me.

Once the devil killed Jesus the whole plan was irrevocably set in place. In that sense God did will what He wants, but He can not simply wave a magic wand and make it right again. That is the proper context to consider when reading Revelation 19:6. It is talking about a whole different loaf of bread than the one we have now.