Creation Theory
Barrett Teele
our past to know where we're heading.
Ever since Darwin popularized the theory of Evolution, man has been up in
arms about what is correct. What if the scientists and the Bible are both
correct?
Let me explain,
In Genesis 1:3-4 God created the light and the darkness, there's no telling
how many years that took to accomplish this, but once that was done verse 5
states "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day." This second sentence could
simply be telling us that the first phase of the operation was finished on
the first day of the week, Sunday.
I don't know of other cultures that use a different length for weeks than
seven days. If anyone knows of some, please post up.
In verses 6&7 He creates the Heaven we all strive to reach someday. From a
scientists viewpoint we have no idea how long that took either, but it
likely took many years.
Verse 8 states that the 2nd day was present, so it could well have been
Monday many years later that God decided to start a new phase.
Here's where the theory really helps. Verses 9-12 describe the begining of
Pangea, of which we do have evidence for. Think of it as mostly a gradual
process spanning many eras, that the scientists have evidence for. Note we
have at this point in time all sorts of plants now in the Earth too which
sound a lot like what we have for the now famous Jurassic age. Just because
God didn't mention the Dinosaurs doesn't mean that he didn't make them or
they weren't there. After all, we have dug up their bones. Then verse 13
comes along saying it was the 3rd day, that just means that this phase came
to a conclusion on a Tuesday at some point.
Verses 14-18 Describe the creation of the astronomy bodies that we're
familiar with. I would imagine getting a new source of light would have
been devasting to much of the life that existed on Earth and would have
wiped out the Dinosaurs.
Verse 19 signals that this phase was finished on a Wednesday.
Verses 20-22 Here we have the creation of whales, fish, and fowl. Now keep
in mind that there were already creatures around that survived from earlier
years. Wouldn't you know it, snakes and crocidiles would be a couple of
examples of the reptiles that held on from the dinosaur era. Insects and
amphbians were likely everywhere still. None of these animals are mentioned
in the creation story. God likely wanted to balance the ecosystem out some
in this phase.
Verse 23 signals that this phase finished on a Thursday some year.
While these animals were evolving gradually by natural selection, God
decides to create the mammals in verses 24&25. Again there's no telling how
long it took to form each mammal, investigating a species would determine
when God did his work.
Now the biggie, man vs. monkey how about both? After he made all those
mammals and then gave them time to evolve. God likely had a strong hand in
guiding animal evolution, especially with the primates. Somewhere down the
line the monkey had pretty much turned into what we would call a man. But
in addition, God made another man and woman in verses 26-27. Notice how God
says in verse 28 "replenish the earth", this would suggest that something
had been taken away, like a plague that had wiped out a lot of primative
man.
And you guessed it, the day of the week God made man was a Friday.
Thank God it's Friday
There's a lot of clues as to there being other people in exsistance besides
Adam and Eve. Note that when Cain slew Able and received the curse from
God, Cain was worryied about other men slaying him, whereas Adam and Eve had
only had 2 sons at this point, and one of them was dead. Gen. 4:1-15
Even when you consider that Eve was named so because she is the "mother of
all living" Gen. 3:20
One must remember Noah was a direct descendant of Adam, and the father's
line is what gets credit in the Bible. The wildcard is Noah's wife we don't
know where she is descended from. It is quite possible she was one of those
not of Adam's tie in, thus giving us our animal roots.
He rested on Saturday, 7th day, as we all should, for it is the sabbath.
Barrett
Melchizedek
"Barrett Teele" <BTE...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Hqpj9.38464$Wa.20...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Look here:
Creation Seminar Online
ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/hovind/index-ra.html - video
ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/hovind/index-mp3.html - audio
The Creation of Everything by Lambert Dolphin
(Genesis 1-11 plus other OT and NT passages)
One of the most important subjects in our work of developing a personal Christian world-view is to
understand what the Bible says about creation. On some points modern science and Biblical revelation
are in accord.
However many of the deep things of God's revelation to us in the Bible have been neglected in recent
years. For many scientific naturalism has moved in to fill the void. As in all areas of Biblical
knowledge, a good understanding of what the Bible actually says (or leaves open) is the best place
to start in evaluating the secular science and philosophy of our modern world. Most important of
all, knowing God intimately as a Person worthy of our worship and service is very closely related to
our understanding of the work of the Master Craftsman who brought everything that is, into existence
out of nothing.
in RealAudio
ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/lambert-dolphin/the-creation-of-everything/index.html
General Creation Related Folders
ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/Creation%20Related/
-- Over 30 Gbytes of Material - No Charge --
Christian Bible Study Collection
Comprehensive Old & New Testament Bible studies,
commentaries, concordances, Bible lookups, and multiple
translations. PowerPoint, VCD movies, RealAudio, MP3,
MediaPlayer, Adobe PDF formats with free readers.
A rich set of web site links, continually being updated.
ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/index.sht
Jon Jones
@twister.southeast.rr.com>, BTE...@nc.rr.com says...
> I know this isn't exactly future looking, but sometimes its good to study
> our past to know where we're heading.
>
> Ever since Darwin popularized the theory of Evolution, man has been up in
> arms about what is correct. What if the scientists and the Bible are both
> correct?
The problem is that - your sincere efforts aside - the
sequences of "creation" given in the Bible directly
conflict with what science knows they were. Consequently,
the cannot both be right. And the Bible is just wrong.
> There's a lot of clues as to there being other people in exsistance besides
> Adam and Eve. Note that when Cain slew Able and received the curse from
> God, Cain was worryied about other men slaying him, whereas Adam and Eve had
> only had 2 sons at this point, and one of them was dead. Gen. 4:1-15
Yes, unfortunately there were modern humans in existence
way before any "Adam" or "Eve".
> Even when you consider that Eve was named so because she is the "mother of
> all living" Gen. 3:20
> One must remember Noah was a direct descendant of Adam, and the father's
> line is what gets credit in the Bible. The wildcard is Noah's wife we don't
> know where she is descended from. It is quite possible she was one of those
> not of Adam's tie in, thus giving us our animal roots.
Also, the mythical world-wide flood never occurred, hence,
no Noah. So again, the Bible and science cannot be both
right. Obviously, in this case, the Bible is just a myth.
There is evidence that there have been points where all
humanity was limited to several 10s of thousands of
individuals, but this event - if confirmed - occurred 70
thousand years ago, which is quite beyond any human memory.
Jon Jones
says...
> Creation Seminar Online
> ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/hovind/index-ra.html - video
>
> ftp://bibleweb:bibl...@65.191.190.17/hovind/index-mp3.html - audio
Do not believe Hovind. He lies. He lies by misrepresenting
scientific knowledge, twisting anomalous findings to seem
as though they are proven, purposely not reporting the
views and evidences of mainstream science that makes his
material laughable.
> As in all areas of Biblical
> knowledge, a good understanding of what the Bible actually says
> (or leaves open) is the best place
> to start in evaluating the secular science and philosophy of our modern world.
Or, more rationally, secular science and philosophy are the
best place to start in evaluating the Bible.
Barrett Teele
that the most effective way to minister to others is not to claim that
science is just plain wrong, but make a point to use science in a way to
edify the Bible. Use it to fill in the gaps if you will. There's obviously
a lot more going on in the creation than what is mentioned in Genesis 1.
There's no direct mention of planets, asteriods, or comets, but anyone
that's seen a shooting star or looked out and seen the steady (untwinkling)
light of Venus in the night sky has evidence that there's more in creation
than God wrote about.
As for the Noah deal. I'll have to do some research on that.
This site will help http://www.circlegame.com/live/noah_ark.htm
The ark was really appears to have been there but my question is, was the
whole world really flooded, like many right wing Bible believers contend?
It might well have been that once Noah and his family were the only
survivors in the whole region we now call the Holy Land, and that could have
been what God was talking about when He said earth. However, He never says
"Earth" or "whole earth" throughout the story of the flood. This makes me
think that most of the world was spared the flood, but there weren't as many
people in the other parts.
Just some food for thought,
Barrett
Jon Jones
@twister.southeast.rr.com>, BTE...@nc.rr.com says...
> It might well have been that once Noah and his family were the only
> survivors in the whole region we now call the Holy Land, and that could have
> been what God was talking about when He said earth. However, He never says
> "Earth" or "whole earth" throughout the story of the flood. This makes me
> think that most of the world was spared the flood, but there weren't as many
> people in the other parts.
Nice attempt. You should, however, consider several things:
1. The "flood" is a retelling of a much earlier "flood"
legend (Gilgamish) - and may have involved the flooding of
the Black Sea. It was pirated for the Bible.
2. Humans, as do other animals, increase enough to fill
available space. It is possible to then say quite
confidently that there were thousands - if not millions -
of people in the world at the late date of the flood.
Remember, even if the flood supposedly took place in 3,000
B.C.E., people had already been in Africa, Europe and Asia
for tens of thousands of years. For that matter, the same
hold true for Adam and Eve.
sensible2me
Jon Jones <JonJ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17f82fa0c...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <Hqpj9.38464$Wa.2024736
> @twister.southeast.rr.com>, BTE...@nc.rr.com says...
> > I know this isn't exactly future looking, but sometimes its good to
study
> > our past to know where we're heading.
> >
> > Ever since Darwin popularized the theory of Evolution, man has been up
in
> > arms about what is correct. What if the scientists and the Bible are
both
> > correct?
>
> The problem is that - your sincere efforts aside - the
> sequences of "creation" given in the Bible directly
> conflict with what science knows they were. Consequently,
> the cannot both be right. And the Bible is just wrong.
sensible2me:
What if the bible was written by scientific minds. The study of science
is trying to figure facts. Where the basics of *figuring* is concerned and
how it came to be, how it has evolved or not has much more to be discovered.
I think they are both right, but it takes a scientific mind to figure it
out. Not a literal show me this fact and I'll beleive it which would still
leave man living in just one cell of an entire universe of knowledge yet to
be discovered and learned.
There's a lot of clues as to there being other people in exsistance besides
> > Adam and Eve.
sensible2me:
God created man to have a scientific mind. He by all means must figure. He
has to place himself in square one and begin to figure what is this mess he
has created.
Perhaps he does not recognize himself when he figures for others. .
Note that when Cain slew Able and received the curse from
> > God, Cain was worryied about other men slaying him, whereas Adam and Eve
had
> > only had 2 sons at this point, and one of them was dead. Gen. 4:1-15
>
sensible2me:
Figure comes from where? One good idea, one bad idea, how often do we slay
the good idea? Ideas lead us down many paths and we pick up one after
another that was born of a eve-ill mind. People grow into ideas, it's the
idea that becomes the man. The man gives his seed idea to another mind and
she births his child (idea.) Soon you have all these wild and harry ideas
flying all over creation. Where did they come from?
> Yes, unfortunately there were modern humans in existence
> way before any "Adam" or "Eve".
>
> > Even when you consider that Eve was named so because she is the "mother
of
> > all living" Gen. 3:20
> > One must remember Noah was a direct descendant of Adam, and the father's
> > line is what gets credit in the Bible. The wildcard is Noah's wife we
don't
> > know where she is descended from.
sensible2me:
I bet Noah had a mind he was married to. Where would a mind like Noah's
descend from. Could it ascend as well? Isn't that the picture.... to
ascend.
It is quite possible she was one of those
> > not of Adam's tie in, thus giving us our animal roots.
>
> Also, the mythical world-wide flood never occurred, hence,
> no Noah. So again, the Bible and science cannot be both
> right. Obviously, in this case, the Bible is just a myth.
sensible2me:
Myth's have the neatest meanings but it requires a scientic mind to
*figure.*
Put one and one together and you have a pair.
> There is evidence that there have been points where all
> humanity was limited to several 10s of thousands of
> individuals, but this event - if confirmed - occurred 70
> thousand years ago, which is quite beyond any human memory.
sensible2me:
Memory? Where does that come from? Why do we have memory? Where does it go
when we leave here?
Deep questions I know. You're not required to answer cause facts need to
surface.
Steven J.
> our past to know where we're heading.
>
> Ever since Darwin popularized the theory of Evolution, man has been up in
> arms about what is correct. What if the scientists and the Bible are both
> correct?
>
reconcile the Genesis 1 account to modern scientific theories.
>
> Let me explain,
> In Genesis 1:3-4 God created the light and the darkness, there's no telling
> how many years that took to accomplish this, but once that was done verse 5
> states "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
> the evening and the morning were the first day." This second sentence could
> simply be telling us that the first phase of the operation was finished on
> the first day of the week, Sunday.
>
> I don't know of other cultures that use a different length for weeks than
> seven days. If anyone knows of some, please post up.
>
the kalends (middle day of the month). I'm not sure *any* human
culture outside the Middle East, and those influenced by Middle
Eastern religions (although eventually, due to the establishment of
various forms of Christianity by the imperial western powers, that
included most of them).
>
> In verses 6&7 He creates the Heaven we all strive to reach someday. From a
> scientists viewpoint we have no idea how long that took either, but it
> likely took many years.
>
sky, or atmosphere, of Earth. I know of at least one interpreter who
argues that they refer to the universe (intergalactic space) in
general, but you're the first to identify it with Heaven rather than
the heavens.
>
> Verse 8 states that the 2nd day was present, so it could well have been
> Monday many years later that God decided to start a new phase.
>
> Here's where the theory really helps. Verses 9-12 describe the begining of
> Pangea, of which we do have evidence for. Think of it as mostly a gradual
> process spanning many eras, that the scientists have evidence for. Note we
> have at this point in time all sorts of plants now in the Earth too which
> sound a lot like what we have for the now famous Jurassic age. Just because
> God didn't mention the Dinosaurs doesn't mean that he didn't make them or
> they weren't there. After all, we have dug up their bones. Then verse 13
> comes along saying it was the 3rd day, that just means that this phase came
> to a conclusion on a Tuesday at some point.
>
of the continents. Geologists have reconstructed a history of the
continents uniting and dividing extending most of the way back to the
Cambrian, half a billion years ago (and the process probably was going
on earlier, but it gets hard to reconstruct earlier history). "A lot
of plants" sounds, if anything, more like the Carboniferous epoch, 290
to 360 million years ago, the time of the vast forests which are
widely believed to have given rise to so much of today's coal
deposits.
Of course, there were a lot of animals running (and swimming) around
in the Carboniferous. There'd been a host of arthropods and other
modern phyla since the Cambrian opened, millions of years before any
evidence of plant life on land.
For what it's worth (and I'm not sure it's worth a lot) it has been
suggested that the dinosaurs (and other mesozoic reptiles) were the
_gadolim tanninim_ (conventionally "great whales," but _tannin_ has a
range of meanings, and "giant reptiles" is a possible reading) created
on day five (with birds). OTOH, young-earth creationists tend to
insist that dinosaurs were among the beasts created on day six.
>
> Verses 14-18 Describe the creation of the astronomy bodies that we're
> familiar with. I would imagine getting a new source of light would have
> been devasting to much of the life that existed on Earth and would have
> wiped out the Dinosaurs.
> Verse 19 signals that this phase was finished on a Wednesday.
>
It's not entirely clear what the Earth was supposed to be orbiting
before the sun was created, or what (if anything) raised tides before
the sun and the moon. There are corals from a couple of hundred
million years ago, whose pattern of rings (they formed daily growth
rings, and the pattern of rings, varying in width by season, also
showed yearly patterns) indicating that the day was a couple of hours
shorter when they were alive (inferred because there were 400 or so
day rings per year ring). That would indicate that, while the length
of the day has changed (in a way consistent with the continual gradual
slowing of the Earth by tidal forces all that time), the basic pattern
of seasons and day/night cycles has not much changed. That would
argue against any radical change in the source of the Earth's
illumination, or of the sudden creation of the moon at the end of the
Cretaceous, ca. 65 million years ago.
>
> Verses 20-22 Here we have the creation of whales, fish, and fowl. Now keep
> in mind that there were already creatures around that survived from earlier
> years. Wouldn't you know it, snakes and crocidiles would be a couple of
> examples of the reptiles that held on from the dinosaur era. Insects and
> amphbians were likely everywhere still. None of these animals are mentioned
> in the creation story. God likely wanted to balance the ecosystem out some
> in this phase.
> Verse 23 signals that this phase finished on a Thursday some year.
>
The fossil record suggests that mammals didn't just finish appearing
on one particular day (or even in one particular geological epoch).
One can count the number of different fossil genera of mammals found
in any given period, and compare it to the number of those genera
still living. One can also see when various genera *start*
apppearing. Most of the mammals that appeared early in the Cenozoic
(65 million years ago to now) are extinct; most of those on Earth now
show no trace in the early fossils (although, to be sure, it's very
likely that most species on the Earth *then* show no trace in the
fossil record). The pattern, of course, is even more striking when
you throw in the Mesozoic and earlier eras. The dinosaurs didn't live
all at the same time; _Allosaurus_ was 70 million years extinct when
_Tyrannosaurus_ showed up. The primitive whale _Basilosaurus_ never
laid eyes on a modern dolphin.
>
> While these animals were evolving gradually by natural selection, God
> decides to create the mammals in verses 24&25. Again there's no telling how
> long it took to form each mammal, investigating a species would determine
> when God did his work.
>
> Now the biggie, man vs. monkey how about both? After he made all those
> mammals and then gave them time to evolve. God likely had a strong hand in
> guiding animal evolution, especially with the primates. Somewhere down the
> line the monkey had pretty much turned into what we would call a man. But
> in addition, God made another man and woman in verses 26-27. Notice how God
> says in verse 28 "replenish the earth", this would suggest that something
> had been taken away, like a plague that had wiped out a lot of primative
> man.
> And you guessed it, the day of the week God made man was a Friday.
> Thank God it's Friday
>
Well, of course, if Darwin was right, humans didn't originate on any
particular day, because there wasn't any sharp dividing line between
humans and pre-humans. And indeed, for all its gaps and side
branches, the hominid fossil record shows this pattern. There are all
sorts of hominids that weren't modern humans, and weren't just
erect-walking apes either.
>
> There's a lot of clues as to there being other people in exsistance besides
> Adam and Eve. Note that when Cain slew Able and received the curse from
> God, Cain was worryied about other men slaying him, whereas Adam and Eve had
> only had 2 sons at this point, and one of them was dead. Gen. 4:1-15
>
> Even when you consider that Eve was named so because she is the "mother of
> all living" Gen. 3:20
> One must remember Noah was a direct descendant of Adam, and the father's
> line is what gets credit in the Bible. The wildcard is Noah's wife we don't
> know where she is descended from. It is quite possible she was one of those
> not of Adam's tie in, thus giving us our animal roots.
>
> He rested on Saturday, 7th day, as we all should, for it is the sabbath.
>
> Barrett
-- Steven J.
Barrett Teele
that, phrase there weren't as many people in the other parts. This would be
something to look up in an archeologists book in order to get facts. I made
my statement based on what I'd learned through history courses that taught
that was where ancient civilizations were thriving. And where there is
civilization, there is likely to be a larger gathering of people. I agree
with you on that Humans filling in the gaps, each day there's 219,000 more
people than the day before (read that in National Geographic). I'm also
glad you point out that Gilamesh legend we had to read that in 10th grade.
I contend it was likely the other way around though, they pirated it from
the Bible.
Barrett
Jon Jones
> First of all, I apologize for kind of jumping out on a dangerous limb with
> that, phrase there weren't as many people in the other parts. This would be
> something to look up in an archeologists book in order to get facts.
As it has been too many years since I taught this in
college, I would appreciate your telling me if you find my
information is incorrect.
> I'm also
> glad you point out that Gilamesh legend we had to read that in 10th grade.
> I contend it was likely the other way around though, they pirated it from
> the Bible.
Nice treatment of this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm