GOD’S TIMETABLE FOR CREATION

[Frank Robert]

So Frank, tell me if Romans 1's saying that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness is necessary but mythical. Because it is actually historically true. If it is not true, Romans is meaningless, including all statements about Christ.

If you are saying a main purpose of the Bible is to teach morals and values and for living your faith in Christ, I agree.

2 Peter 3 reported gradualism back then from Greek thought, and I'm reporting gradualism took over modern science when the Huxleys pushed Darwin through and buried Pellegrini.

Notice this from Lewis, in "Man or Rabbit?" in GOD IN THE DOCK: "If Christianity is untrue, no honest man will want to believe it, no matter how helpful it may be. If it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all." The reason for Lewis title here is not directly about evolution. It is about how real men pursue things that are true, not things that 'help.' Rabbits seek things that help; that's all they know.

You are jumbling two separate domains, religious and science, that have there own methodologies.

If you do not believe it to be historically true, you should be done with it. But it remains amazing how many cultures have so many of the elements in their cultural consciousness, almost as if they were once on pangea (they were, acc. to Pellegrini).
That's why there is really no problem "tracing Genesis through other cultures"--disintegration in other cultures is what we would expect.

Whether or not they are historically true does diminish their value. And again, there are no demerits for whichever way you interpret them.

I'll watch the video when I have a chance.

 

[EarlyActs]

Hi Frank, don't miss Metaxas' Newsweek piece: https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1717628783807664255?s=20

 

[EarlyActs]

It is not a jumble, it is a unity. It says it is a unity. It does not say it is neo-orthodox. I'm confused: have you momentarily forgot that the text is about real space-time streams of history? Does it say otherwise? Have you ever read utter fantasy mythology so you can spot the intended difference?

Way back (above) there was an explanation of how the universe might be older but our system is not, per 2 Peter 3 with its specfic terms about the physical elements of the world, the previous world that was destroyed, and its contrast that the universe is 'ek palai' (from of old) but the earth was (more recently) formed. That's why Velikovsky is so important, and the ice-mountains of Pluto (which can't last longer than a few thousand) and many, many other indicators.

 

[Frank Robert]

It is not a jumble, it is a unity. It says it is a unity. It does not say it is neo-orthodox. I'm confused:

I was responding to your statement about Darwin which followed you statement of 2 Peter.

have you momentarily forgot that the text is about real space-time streams of history? Does it say otherwise? Have you ever read utter fantasy mythology so you can spot the intended difference
Way back (above) there was an explanation of how the universe might be older but our system is not, per 2 Peter 3 with its specfic terms about the physical elements of the world, the previous world that was destroyed, and its contrast that the universe is 'ek palai' (from of old) but the earth was (more recently) formed. That's why Velikovsky is so important, and the ice-mountains of Pluto (which can't last longer than a few thousand) and many, many other indicators.

That sounds like apologetics which is not science.

Hi Frank, don't miss Metaxas' Newsweek piece: https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1717628783807664255?s=20

Metaxas is stretching things which is what apologists do. For the record, I don't disagree that there are a few Biblical verses that can be externally verified.

 

[Frank Robert]

Hi Frank, don't miss Metaxas' Newsweek piece: https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1717628783807664255?s=20

When Biblically Inspired Pseudoscience and Clickbait Cause Looting

A team of anthropologists says flawed research links biblical Sodom to an archaeological site and encourages illegal excavations.

www.sapiens.org

For myriad reasons, and like many other scholars working in Southwest Asia, we were profoundly disappointed when Scientific Reports, a peer-reviewed journal operating under one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature, published pseudoscientific research about a supposed ancient cosmic airburst destroying the Tall el-Hammam site in what is today Jordan. The authors speculate that this putative event may have been the basis for the biblical story of Sodom, in which a city was allegedly destroyed by stones and fire sent from the sky.​

​

...Much of the media attention seemed to us to be pushed by clickbait (sensationalistic text designed to entice readers to an article’s often dubious claims). For example, The Conversation article written by some of the study’s authors featured the enticing title “A Giant Space Rock Demolished an Ancient Middle Eastern City and Everyone in It—Possibly Inspiring the Biblical Story of Sodom.” The piece was widely republished, including in SAPIENS as “Did an Asteroid Shape This Famous Biblical Story?”—a clear tease.​

​

What’s at stake when pseudoscience becomes clickbait? Many things, but we have time and space here to address only two repercussions: the erosion of scientific integrity and the destruction of archaeological sites.​

 

[EarlyActs]

That sounds like apologetics which is not science.

So here we come to the nub. You can't say this, just like in logic you can't say 'all S is not P.' For the simple reason that some S is P.

A family with means was wanting to find out what happened to a relative who went down over Iceland in WW2. They did their own dig and found the craft down several hundred feet. They went to something like the Geophysical Institute in Boulder and said "we located his aircraft and we also know you have done ice core samples in the area and believe it to be Ms of years old."

One of these parties is not doing science. But some apologetics is science, even if it contradicts the crap out of a department at Ohio State.

Here in Alaska a colleague is helping a company drill and a mile down they have hit a "beach." It is suddenly all sand but also has signs of various marine life.

You can't have the position you just posted and be honest. There are way too many contradictions, which is where there is legitimate apologetics.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you haven't seen Discovery Institute's HUMAN ZOOS you have not heard why not to trust places like THE SMITHSONIAN.

I think it is fair to say that if you don't realize the Bible's self-awareness is that it is a unity of explanation and space-time fact, you don't know it. I mean in the same sense as Newton. You may not like certain explanations or positions taken, but they didn't traffick in myth.

Newton did not finally accept that Christ was divine; OK, but he always viewed the material as a unity. Had he been able to hear a presentation on the destruction of Jerusalem announced 40 years ahead by Christ, repeating Daniel's 490 years ahead, he might have altered that, as did the English attorney Erskine. Some historians say that once Holford was done circulating around England about the destruction of Jerusalem (pub. 1835), skeptics gave up attacking the divinity of Christ and concentrated on dismantling Genesis.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you haven't seen Discovery Institute's HUMAN ZOOS you have not heard why not to trust places like THE SMITHSONIAN.

Discovery Institute is a think tank for Christian apologetics. They make many inappropriate claims which lack both logic and evidence of any kind to to back up claims.

I think it is fair to say that if you don't realize the Bible's self-awareness is that it is a unity of explanation and space-time fact, you don't know it. I mean in the same sense as Newton. You may not like certain explanations or positions taken, but they didn't traffick in myth.

The Bible is not a science or history book . Belief in a literal Bible is based solely on faith. That is not to say that occasionalle there is external evidence that coincides with the Bible.

Newton did not finally accept that Christ was divine; OK, but he always viewed the material as a unity. Had he been able to hear a presentation on the destruction of Jerusalem announced 40 years ahead by Christ, repeating Daniel's 490 years ahead, he might have altered that, as did the English attorney Erskine. Some historians say that once Holford was done circulating around England about the destruction of Jerusalem (pub. 1835), skeptics gave up attacking the divinity of Christ and concentrated on dismantling Genesis.

I am a Christian who interprets the bible metaphorically. You are a Christian who interprets the Bible literally. Both are legitimate ways of interpreting the Bible. Again for umpteenth time it doesn't matter which way you interpret the Bible. They have nothing to do with living your faith in Christ.

Why do you have a problem with Christians who do not share your beliefs?

BTW, you haven't responded to my comment about Metaxas's Newsweek piece which lead to Pseudoscience Click Bait.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think that there is more doubt sowed in God's word by insisting that the Genesis account of creation is a literal description. The data that the universe is a whole lot older than about 6000 years is just too extensive to be ignored. The evidence of a 13+Billion year old universe is not a lie of Satan; rather it is the data put forth by God's own nature as He created it.

I had a young man ask me, "Do I have to believe in a 6000-year-old universe in order to be a Christian?" I was appalled then and I am appalled now that such a question would be answered with a "yes".

Have you heard of disconnecting the prior existence of the planet from the events of Creation week? I’m an RCW—recent creation week believer. 1:2 says the planet was already there but not the life forms and bio-sphere we have now.

When they are created, the Hebrew phrase is ‘swarming with swarms’ ie immediate fullness and thriving and completeness, like the food created in Jesus’ feedings—except living!

Our local solar system may also be seen this way—dating only to an RCW. Velikovsky showed that Jupiter would be found to be radiologically hot. It was. It should have been cold. And Gieb has shown that the ice mountains of Pluto only last about 5000 years, as is the case with other astronomical bodies like comets.

I know of one easily-seen factor that would support the universe being younger than 6B but bc of 2 Peter 3’s terms that distinguish the universe from our earth in age (ekpalai and sunestosa) I’m inclined to think we have an RCW that only involves our local star system.

 

[EarlyActs]

I know that it is popular to argue over Genesis 1 EXCLUSIVELY in the context of “Literal vs Figurative” and “6 days vs millions of years” and “Faith vs Science” with everyone choosing one of three views:

• Pro-bible literalism
• Anti-bible scientific data
• ”Here is my reconciliation of the apparent contradiction”

As much “FUN” as those discussions are [that was sarcasm, they are the opposite of fun] … I was always attracted to something else. The fancy term is “POLEMIC”, but let’s toss that aside and just talk about Genesis 1 from a completely different point of view.

WHAT IF …
God appeared to you and wanted to talk to you about this potential Bible that He was going to inspire someone to write. People were going to have questions about the origin of everything (CREATION) and God could only afford to dedicate a limited number of words to His explanation. What God provided would be 100% accurate in its details, but limited in scope by the need for brevity. [Let’s face it, there is just a LOT of important information that God needed for Moses to convey and could not spend several books describing creation leading up to the first man and woman.]. So here is God’s question to you:

• Would you rather have a limited but accurate account that reveals information about HOW everything was created, or would you rather have a limited but accurate account that reveals information about WHO created everything?
• Which do you think was more important to God to reveal to His people, HOW or WHO?
• So does it change anything in our thinking if Genesis 1 was written to reveal important information about WHO HE IS … this God that created everything … rather than HOW everything was created?

Genesis 1: WHO GOD IS
An observation from Genesis 1:1 … God always existed. There is no “creation of God”. It is important to our understanding of God to know that He always was and always will be. That makes God “NOT LIKE US” -Holy, set apart, other is the fancy religious description if you get into specific Hebrew words. For me, ETERNAL and UNCHANGING covers enough ground to set the stage for understanding that God is not like Zeus (or any other pagan god).

For the first three days, God DIVIDES things.

• Day 1: God divides LIGHT from DARKNESS
• Day 2: God divides ABOVE from BELOW
• Day 3: God divides LAND from WATER

God is a God who creates by first DIVIDING. That is part of who He is and how He works … God’s modus operandi.
[SPOILER ALERT: What if anything does this tell us about what will come later in the story? Think about it.]

For the next three days, God creates by MULTIPLYING and filling what was divided in the first three days.

• Day 4: God created lights … sun and moon and stars … to fill the ABOVE
• Day 5: God created creature … fish and birds … to fill the air (dividing above from below) and the WATER.
• Day 6: God created animals and man … to fill the LAND.

Thus God is a God who creates by first DIVIDING and then MULTIPLYING to fill the void created by the division. Division creates room for new creation. This is also part of who God is and how He works … God’s modus operandi.
[SPOILER ALERT: What if anything does this tell us about what will come later in the story? Think about it.]

Finally, on Day 7, God rests from His labor and BLESSES. This is also part of who God is and how He works … God’s modus operandi.
[SPOILER ALERT: What if anything does this tell us about what will come later in the story? Think about it.]

I don’t want to spoil too much of the fun for you, so I will leave you all to ponder for yourselves IF and HOW these lessons from Genesis 1 might apply to the work of the New Covenant. I will offer this observation instead:


GENESIS 1: LOOKING AT ABRAM
Abram was a ‘city boy’ living with his extended family in the ‘Fertile Crescent‘ (Mesopotamia, the birthplace of agriculture) when the God of Genesis 1 called Abram to leave his home, family and way of life behind to follow God. STEP 1: God DIVIDES Abram from his old land and life and people.

God leads Abram and Lot and all their servants (because people NEVER quite obey God without hedging their bet). STEP 2: God MULTIPLIES Abram’s household and herds and wealth.

God causes Isaac to be born in a miraculous conception, calls for the sacrifice of Isaac and then offers a ram in his place. STEP 3: God BLESSES Abram, renaming him Abraham, and provides blessings upon blessings for His chosen. Faithfulness is rewarded as “the Father of all who have faith” … through whom “all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed”.


GENESIS 1: LOOKING AT MOSES
Naw, I’m not going to do it … but you can look at it for yourself if you want. DIVIDE - MULTIPLY - BLESS Can you find the pattern?

As for me, I will just point out that God revealed this pattern of WHO GOD IS and HOW GOD DOES THINGS in Genesis 1 … which I found a LOT more useful than a divine textbook on “evolutionary biology” or “planetology”.

I will let all of you decide for yourselves.

Good work. The text is often about things we don’t ask about with our need to answer materialism.

See my short book on ‘young, local creation week,’ at Amazon , for now. BACK IN BUSINESS.

 

[EarlyActs]

Have you heard of disconnecting the prior existence of the planet from the events of Creation week? I’m an RCW—recent creation week believer. 1:2 says the planet was already there but not the life forms and bio-sphere we have now.

When they are created, the Hebrew phrase is ‘swarming with swarms’ ie immediate fullness and thriving and completeness, like the food created in Jesus’ feedings—except living!

Our local solar system may also be seen this way—dating only to an RCW. Velikovsky showed that Jupiter would be found to be radiologically hot. It was. It should have been cold. And Gieb has shown that the ice mountains of Pluto only last about 5000 years, as is the case with other astronomical bodies like comets.

I know of one easily-seen factor that would support the universe being younger than 6B but bc of 2 Peter 3’s terms that distinguish the universe from our earth in age (ekpalai and sunestosa) I’m inclined to think we have an RCW that only involves our local star system.

Actually I’ve refined it to ‘young, local creation week’ as a view name.