THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT of CREATION

[dyanaprajna2011]

"There was evening, and there was morning; the first day." "There was evening, and there was morning; the second day." Sounds like literal 24 hour days to me. And what is the scientific classification of "kind"? I've never seen that explained. What I'm getting out of this, basically, is that words like 'day' and 'kind', when found in the bible, can be very vague, vague enough to make them mean whatever the individual reader wants them to mean.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Anthropology, paleontology, geology, biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and so many more science all agree to that the "kinds" we see today evolved. It's the only explanation to fit ALL data that we have, both from the past and from now and how things are going.

There are literally thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of fossils showing the intermediate steps between horses, whales, bats, rats, dinosaurs, birds, ... the fossil record is humongous. It's not some silly drawings where someone thought that maybe this or that would work. No, people who actually look at microscopic changes of bones from one specimen to the other. People who know what they're doing.

If your view is that special creation is true and the Bible confirms it, well, then the Bible is unfortunately very, very wrong.

 

[nazz]

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...?

Wow. Excellent point. I'm surprised that did not dawn on me before (no pun intended)

 

[jtartar]

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,
If you want a short answer to what the Bible says about creation, I believe that Rom 1:18-20.
My brother did not know at what level of knowledge you are at, so he was trying to explain in detail so there would be no misunderstanding of what God thinks of evolution.

 

[McBell]

angellous_evangellous,
If you want a short answer to what the Bible says about creation, I believe that Rom 1:18-20.
My brother did not know at what level of knowledge you are at, so he was trying to explain in detail so there would be no misunderstanding of what God thinks of evolution.

You know what God thinks about evolution?
That is most interesting, though off topic.

 

[JayJayDee]

"The dawn of a new era"..."in my grandfather's day...don't we use expressions like this ourselves?

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at
Gen 2:4..."This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (NASB)

“the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.” (Luke 17:26-30; Isa 1:1) are periods of undetermined length.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Gen 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zeph 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zeph 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2 Pet 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev 16:14), and others.

Peter's expression confirms that 1,000 years is just like a day to God. So if he used the word "day" he isn't talking about an earth day. The creative "days" do not have to be limited to 24 hours long.
God does not operate in earth time. An eternal God is not bound by evening and morning in a 24 hour period of earth's rotation....no such timeframe exists in his domain. He was using the terminology of a beginning and end of an unstated period of time...possibly thousands of earth years to describe in human terms what he was doing. (2 Pet 3:8)

 

[greentwiga]

"The dawn of a new era"..."in my grandfather's day...don't we use expressions like this ourselves?

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at
Gen 2:4..."This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (NASB)

“the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.” (Luke 17:26-30; Isa 1:1) are periods of undetermined length.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Gen 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zeph 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zeph 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2 Pet 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev 16:14), and others.

Peter's expression confirms that 1,000 years is just like a day to God. So if he used the word "day" he isn't talking about an earth day. The creative "days" do not have to be limited to 24 hours long.
God does not operate in earth time. An eternal God is not bound by evening and morning in a 24 hour period of earth's rotation....no such timeframe exists in his domain. He was using the terminology of a beginning and end of an unstated period of time...possibly thousands of earth years to describe in human terms what he was doing. (2 Pet 3:8)

You quoted Gen 2:4 but used a mis-translation. Account is really the word Generations. It indicates that the day of creation was generations long. Not only that, but the day the heavens and earth were created is not the same as the day man was created, yet Gen 2:4 lumps them together as one day. Thus, there are two other arguments supporting your point that the term day is not meant as a 24 hour period.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why it was generations long? Did the earth move around the sun (or sun moved around the earth) with a different speed?

 

[Clarity]

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

This verse implies a very different discipline that what creationists or ID'ers have ever put forward (as far as I know).

I prefer to title myself a "dynamic creationist". I believe that, if God created the heavens and the earth, every aspect of that creation contains his character. I couldn't care less when it happened or how long it took, and I'm certainly not going to focus on the mere superficial observations of its mechanics.

Someone once said, "an artist only ever depicts himself," meaning that if a painter paints a picture of a flower, the image of the flower passes through the artist's brain to his hand, and the result is an image of the flower passed through the artist's concept of it. The picture therefore can't help but possess the character of the artist (his perspective of it).

If you're going to be a creationist, it stands to reason that you would drop everything you're doing and study God through his creation. For those who want to find God, what are you waiting for?

 

[Simurgh]

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?

That sums it up nicely. I still don't get why that particular thread is in this section. or are the creationists infiltrating the common sense arena? what do a few bible verses with someone's interpretation really have to do with science and religion anyhow?:faint:

are we still trying to prove that a political text edited approximately 1700 years ago has scientific value? its a religious text, let's keep that in mind. religion and science are two different things. even the vatican has figured that one out. and the people who work there are not exactly interested in affirming things that diminish the power they hold over their flock.