THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT of CREATION

[JayJayDee]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God created the universe, including the earth, in the indefinite past—“in the beginning,” as Genesis 1:1 says. Modern science agrees that the universe had a beginning. A recent scientific model suggests it to be almost 14 billion years old.

The Bible also describes six “days” of creation. However, it does not say that these were 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:31) In fact, the Bible uses the word “day” to refer to various lengths of time. For example, it calls the entire period of creation “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4) Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.—Psalm 90:4.

WHY IT MATTERS
The false ideas of creationists could lead you to dismiss the Bible altogether. On the other hand, if the Bible actually contains a credible account of creation, you stand to benefit from its storehouse of “practical wisdom.”—Proverbs 3:21.

Did God use evolution to create life on earth?
“God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.’”—Genesis 1:24.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.

The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

WHY IT MATTERS
The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

Where did the raw material of the universe come from?
“I stretched out the heavens with my own hands.”—Isaiah 45:12.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God is the Source of infinite power, or energy. (Job 37:23) This is significant, because scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. The Bible says that God himself is the Source of the “vast dynamic energy” that produced the universe. (Isaiah 40:26) God promises to use his power to sustain his creation, for the Bible says regarding the sun, moon, and stars: “[God] keeps them established forever and ever.”—Psalm 148:3-6.

WHY IT MATTERS
The astronomer Allan Sandage once said: “Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science.” Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science but it also answers questions that science cannot—such as, What is God’s purpose for the earth and for mankind?

From jw.org January 2014 Awake Magazine

Creation | What the Bible Says

This is a different take on creation that does not require belief in a 24 hour "day", nor does it support the idea that God created by means of evolution.

There is something reasonable in the middle.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but you haven't done what you've said you would do. This says absolutely nothing about the "bible's view" (whatever you think that means) about creation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Example:

Once a young maiden from France,
Went out to an upper-class dance.
Without any question,
She had bad digestion.
And lo and behold **** her pants.

Source: Worst 100 Short Poems - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This means that creation is something like seven days.

 

[s2a]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God created the universe, including the earth, in the indefinite past—“in the beginning,” as Genesis 1:1 says. Modern science agrees that the universe had a beginning. A recent scientific model suggests it to be almost 14 billion years old.

“Modern science” also puts forward the notion that both the age and the origins of the cosmos require no explanations of faith to remain plausible and viable.

The Bible also describes six “days” of creation. However, it does not say that these were 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:31) In fact, the Bible uses the word “day” to refer to various lengths of time. For example, it calls the entire period of creation “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4) Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.—Psalm 90:4.

Does “Scripture” actually offer any distinct measure of what a “day” may be? Or is that length purely left to the audience as being purposefully indefinite?

WHY IT MATTERS
The false ideas of creationists could lead you to dismiss the Bible altogether. On the other hand, if the Bible actually contains a credible account of creation, you stand to benefit from its storehouse of “practical wisdom.”—Proverbs 3:21.

Did God use evolution to create life on earth?
“God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.’”—Genesis 1:24.

Yours is a laudable testament of faith, but that’s all it is. Really

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.

Really?

The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

No… that is NOT what “modern research: suggests, or even implies.

WHY IT MATTERS
The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

Where did the raw material of the universe come from?
“I stretched out the heavens with my own hands.”—Isaiah 45:12.

A common faith-based claim that demands absolutely no credible evidence.

To be fair, most of the concerned sciences of astrophysics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc, are in overwhelmingly universal conclusion that the “stuff” of our cosmos found origin within the cores of exploding stars...

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God is the Source of infinite power, or energy. (Job 37:23) This is significant, because scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. The Bible says that God himself is the Source of the “vast dynamic energy” that produced the universe. (Isaiah 40:26) God promises to use his power to sustain his creation, for the Bible says regarding the sun, moon, and stars: “[God] keeps them established forever and ever.”—Psalm 148:3-6

This answer may or may not explain periodic power outages here…especially when AM coffee seems so necessary. Just wondering why such “wonders’ remained unseen for eons beforehand...

WHY IT MATTERS
The astronomer Allan Sandage once said: “Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science.” Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science but it also answers questions that science cannot—such as, What is God’s purpose for the earth and for mankind?

From jw.org January 2014 Awake Magazine

Keeping such observations in rightful perspective, it should also be asked what may be defined as our “deepest questions”.

Just as note, and also quotable attributed to Allan Sandage, is:

“The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures.”

Maybe I’m just the skeptic here, but I read that as his own acknowledgement that science can not be applied to validate faith-based claims.

Creation | What the Bible Says

This is a different take on creation that does not require belief in a 24 hour "day", nor does it support the idea that God created by means of evolution.

There is something reasonable in the middle.

I hope you deem this a fair question…
…does your faith or anyone else's, depend upon, rely upon, or seek validation within any claimed associations of scientifically derived conclusions?

Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Mysticism, Mythology, etc…were all existent and predated any concepts of scientific methodology by centuries or even millennia… is this not so?

And if so, what requirements of necessity does “science” refine or fulfill in religiously doctrinal teachings of “belief” or “faith” today? Historically. “faith” existed long before even the most rudimentary aspects of experimentation or comparisons of data ever came to light.

Why now rely upon, or point towards “science” as some validation of faith-based claims?

Is the fact that “science” does not rely upon religious claims to form independently derived conclusions the sticking point, or is it something else?

 

[ranvirk]

Science can stand on its two feet .. It doesn't need religion..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

Not my bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Example:

Once a young maiden from France,
Went out to an upper-class dance.
Without any question,
She had bad digestion.
And lo and behold **** her pants.

Source: Worst 100 Short Poems - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This means that creation is something like seven days.

Oh, come on now, I thought the poem was rather good. One might even say that it added some class to the thread (not an easy task for a thread ANNOUNCED IN ALL CAPS).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean the Watchtower's viewpoint of Creation. I accept evolution and believe in the Bible. There's no conflict when you stop treating the Bible like a science textbook.

 

[nazz]

“Modern science” also puts forward the notion that both the age and the origins of the cosmos require no explanations of faith to remain plausible and viable.

True. But it does take faith to believe that is what really happened.

 

[s2a]

True. But it does take faith to believe that is what really happened.

As long as we can both agree that "faith" has no ties with established scientific "truths" (which are only "best available explanations") in any measure at all, sure

I only ask this to ponder...

Is it "harder" to believe in Santa as "real", or to experiment within the realms of physics to employ a particle accelerator to prospectively reveal a "Higgs Boson" as a theoretical predictive probability?

Maybe when you can "prove" Santa by faith beliefs alone, those testy Bosons will happen along soon enough

 

[johnhanks]

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.

Really? The fossil record tells us some 99% of life-forms that have existed are now extinct. Did god change his mind about trilobite kind?

WHY IT MATTERS
The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

Scientific accuracy? Where is the bible's account of the Ediacaran fauna? Where does the bible deal with marsupials? Almost all animal species are invertebrates: where is the bible's description of their "kinds"?
Appealing to the bible's imaginary "scientific accuracy" is the kind of special pleading that gets biblical apologetics a (deserved) bad name.

 

[ruffen]

True. But it does take faith to believe that is what really happened.

Maybe for you, but luckily the Universe is the way it is whether or not you believe it. The evidence is there, if you bother to look at it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Modern science agrees that the universe had a beginning..

This is not correct. The modern science agrees 'this' universe had a beginning. But does not claim if before Big Bang there were not other universes.
God has always been creator. It is not correct to say creation of God has a beginning.

 

[Skwim]

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God created the universe, including the earth, in the indefinite past—“in the beginning,” as Genesis 1:1 says. Modern science agrees that the universe had a beginning. A recent scientific model suggests it to be almost 14 billion years old.

The Bible also describes six “days” of creation. However, it does not say that these were 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:31) In fact, the Bible uses the word “day” to refer to various lengths of time. For example, it calls the entire period of creation “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4) Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.—Psalm 90:4.

WHY IT MATTERS
The false ideas of creationists could lead you to dismiss the Bible altogether. On the other hand, if the Bible actually contains a credible account of creation, you stand to benefit from its storehouse of “practical wisdom.”—Proverbs 3:21.

And why would the translators of the scriptures use a word, "day" in this case, when it doesn't conform to its common definition?

day (n).
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
​

It simply doesn't make sense to use a common word to mean something other than what it is. So either

1) The Bible is correct when it uses "day" in in this passage to mean a period of 24 hours.

2) The Bible is in error---"day" is not the correct word.

OR

3) The Bible was deliberately mistranslated so as to _________fill in the break____________.
​

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.

The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

WHY IT MATTERS
The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

Until you define "kind" with far greater precision than you have it remains a meaningless term. And, when you start talking about "kind" in regards to evolution then you're obligated to explain it in scientific terms---those of evolutionary science. Ya can't have it both ways.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God is the Source of infinite power, or energy. (Job 37:23) This is significant, because scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. The Bible says that God himself is the Source of the “vast dynamic energy” that produced the universe. (Isaiah 40:26) God promises to use his power to sustain his creation, for the Bible says regarding the sun, moon, and stars: “[God] keeps them established forever and ever.”—Psalm 148:3-6.

Not a significant observation at all. Science says there is energy, and the Bible, according to you, says the energy came from god. So what? Posit whatever source you want, whether your opinion or that of an old book. It ain't all that interesting. Oh wait . . . . .

WHY IT MATTERS
The astronomer Allan Sandage once said: “Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science.” . . .
. . .it also answers questions that science cannot—such as, What is God’s purpose for the earth and for mankind?

So what? Science was never concocted to answer philosophical questions.

Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science

Believe me, science does NOT employ "God did X, Y, and Z." Nor are the creation events in the Bible in the same order as science sees them. No harmony what-so-ever here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And why would the translators of the scriptures use a word, "day" in this case, when it doesn't conform to its common definition?

day (n).
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
​

It simply doesn't make sense to use a common word to mean something other than what it is. So either

1) The Bible is correct when it uses "day" in in this passage to mean a period of 24 hours.

2) The Bible is in error---"day" is not the correct word.

OR

3) The Bible was deliberately mistranslated so as to _________fill in the break____________.
​

Actually the word was "Om". There are several different ways to translate it and it has no direct english translation. The closest thing we have is "era" or "age". Day was more or less a mistranslation or perhaps "day" had more meaning back when it was translated. However it is still correct to say that the litteralists are following an obviously wrong meaning if we looked at the original text.

 

[Skwim]

Actually the word was "Om". There are several different ways to translate it and it has no direct english translation. The closest thing we have is "era" or "age". Day was more or less a mistranslation or perhaps "day" had more meaning back when it was translated. However it is still correct to say that the litteralists are following an obviously wrong meaning if we looked at the original text.

Which still goes to my point that today's Bibles are published for today's readers who understand particular words with their common meanings, not those of perhaps a bygone era or language. And considering that some Christians believe the Bible is the "word of god," either written down as he wanted or inspired others to write it down, one would expect him to do so without any error or mishandling to creeping in. Why bother to have one's words set down for posterity if they will eventually be so botched up as to mislead and confuse the reader? If I was godI'd make damn certain that my book conveyed exactly what I meant regardless of when and by whom it is published.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Which still goes to my point that today's Bibles are published for today's readers who understand particular words with their common meanings, not those of perhaps a bygone era or language. And considering that some Christians believe the Bible is the "word of god," either written down as he wanted or inspired others to write it down, one would expect him to do so without any error or mishandling to creeping in. Why bother to have one's words set down for posterity if they will eventually be so botched up as to mislead and confuse the reader? If I was godI'd make damn certain that my book conveyed exactly what I meant regardless of when and by whom it is published.

I agree but the religious answer is that the text doesn't so much matter as what god tells you. And then there is the ultimate fallback of "your just an atheist so you can't understand. The holy spirit enlightens you and gives you wisdom on how to correctly read the bible." or some such nonesense.

 

[gnostic]

Why do creationist who believe in Peter's 1-day=1000-year nonsense, totally ignore this part of the verse - And there was evening and there was morning...?

No matter how I look at it, one cycle of an evening & morning, do not equal 1000 years.

And beside that, the wording in 2 Peter 3:8 verse only easy that

...a day is like a thousand years...

...and...

...and a thousand years are like a day.

You should know that "is like" or "are like" doesn't mean it has to be taken as literals.

The operative word is "like". LIKE doesn't mean they are the same things. The word "like" (and "as", which are used in Peter's verse, by KJV translation) are common word used in narratives or stories, known as simile.

I had started a thread on simile in 2 Peter 3:8: should the verse be taken as "literal" or "metaphoric"?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.


WHY IT MATTERS
The false ideas of creationists could lead you to dismiss the Bible altogether. On the other hand, if the Bible actually contains a credible account of creation, you stand to benefit from its storehouse of “practical wisdom.”—Proverbs 3:21.

I dismiss the bible because 2Samual says david paid 50 sheckles of silver for the threshing floor and 1Chronicles says he paid 600 sheckles of gold for the same. Now if that doesn't add up, what does?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.

The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

Unfortunately, modern scientific research shows the exact opposite. With a handful of exceptions, the organisms we see around us today have no existed very long, and the sorts of organisms which did exist a long time ago do not exist any more today. Moreover, genetics evidence shows that its more likely than not that all organisms share a common ancestor.

WHY IT MATTERS
The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.

And so then the converse is true as well; that the Bible's lack of scientific accuracy pertaining to biology weakens its credibility in other areas? Although, I suppose that weakening one's credibility with respect to prophecy isn't saying much- that's like saying "drier than the ocean" (its hard to get any less credible than by giving literal/genuine prophecies)...