Who made God?

[Papa Zoom]

Why did you avoid dealing with the Scriptures and emphases I raised about the separate persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

By the way, it is spelt Divine and not Devine.

Oz

My question as well.

 

[OzSpen]

No. The days are numbered and divided by the terms morning and evening. Take out the numbering of the days as well as morning and evening then the day-age guys might have a point.
Secondly the ten commandments back up the Genesis account when it too tells us it was six days of creation than a day of rest.
....and that's just the beginning of the problems with a day-age account of Genesis.

Cygnus,

Norman L Geisler's assessment of the 6 literal days of Genesis 1 is:

Evidence that the “Days” of Genesis May Involve more than Six 24 hour days of Creation

Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the “days” of Genesis are not 6 successive 24 hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner,A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) It is also used of a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.”

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day. (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit comparison. Further, the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11). So, why cannot the other days be longer too? (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam’s sin. It only asserts that “death passed upon all men” because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals, though the whole creation was subject to “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21).

(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicists (inGenesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos(1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity? (Norman Geisler, DOES BELIEVING IN INERRANCY REQUIRE ONE TO BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM?)​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hello calvin here.

Go to website, right click on image.
select image url.
return here and select insert image.........image icon is just to the right of smiley icon.
paste image url and away you go.

calvin,

I use Firefox. I right click on the image; choose 'copy image'. come back to this page and use Ctrl V. What do I get?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

WOW! It worked!

 

[calvin]

calvin,

I use Firefox. I right click on the image; choose 'copy image'. come back to this page and use Ctrl V. What do I get?

Yes, that can work too; what has Firefox got to do with anything?
Please explain the relevance of Firefox to the exercise of copying an image, as distinct from any of the several other browsers out there.
Edited text

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus,

Norman L Geisler's assessment of the 6 literal days of Genesis 1 is:

Evidence that the “Days” of Genesis May Involve more than Six 24 hour days of Creation

Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the “days” of Genesis are not 6 successive 24 hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner,A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) It is also used of a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.”

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day. (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit comparison. Further, the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11). So, why cannot the other days be longer too? (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam’s sin. It only asserts that “death passed upon all men” because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals, though the whole creation was subject to “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21).

(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicists (inGenesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos(1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity? (Norman Geisler, DOES BELIEVING IN INERRANCY REQUIRE ONE TO BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM?)​

Oz

Norman is wrong. When the simple everyday reading of Genesis is understood.....a literal 24 hour time period of Six days and 1 day of rest is implied.
Take out the numbering of the days and the mention of evening and morning and you might have an argument.

The day age theory is nothing but a pipe dream used by old earth uniformitarians who try to force evolutionism into the Word of God.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Norman is wrong. When the simple everyday reading of Genesis is understood.....a literal 24 hour time period of Six days and 1 day of rest is implied.
Take out the numbering of the days and the mention of evening and morning and you might have an argument.

The day age theory is nothing but a pipe dream used by old earth uniformitarians who try to force evolutionism into the Word of God.

There is no such thing as a simple everyday reading of Genesis. Scholars have discussed and disputed the passages for hundreds of years. Geisler is a top notch scholar. Don't dismiss his view so easily. As for the literal 24 hour period: I rejected that long ago. All you've done here is dismiss Geisler without any indepth analysis of his view, make a shallow statement about Genesis, and then attack those who hold to an old earth view. I see nothing here to convince me of your view.

 

[OzSpen]

Norman is wrong. When the simple everyday reading of Genesis is understood.....a literal 24 hour time period of Six days and 1 day of rest is implied.
Take out the numbering of the days and the mention of evening and morning and you might have an argument.

The day age theory is nothing but a pipe dream used by old earth uniformitarians who try to force evolutionism into the Word of God.

You didn't deal with the issues Geisler raised and you have the audacity to declare, 'Norman is wrong'. I'll consider Geisler's thoughtful approach rather than some of your assertions without evidence.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There is no such thing as a simple everyday reading of Genesis. Scholars have discussed and disputed the passages for hundreds of years. Geisler is a top notch scholar. Don't dismiss his view so easily. As for the literal 24 hour period: I rejected that long ago. All you've done here is dismiss Geisler without any indepth analysis of his view, make a shallow statement about Genesis, and then attack those who hold to an old earth view. I see nothing here to convince me of your view.

Papa,

I agree. There are many scholarly evangelicals who do not subscribe to young earth creationism. Unfortunately, there is much publicity for the YEC view. See:
Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, that can work too; what has Firefox got to do with anything?
Please explain the relevance of Firefox to the exercise of copying an image, as distinct from any of the several other browsers out there.
Edited text

I used Firefox as my browser to obtain the image you posted. My point was to provide another strategy to do a copy and paste of an image. Nothing more and nothing less.
:woot

Oz

 

[calvin]

I used Firefox as my browser to obtain the image you posted. My point was to provide another strategy to do a copy and paste of an image. Nothing more and nothing less.
:woot

Oz

My point is that there are well over 20 different browsers any and all of which can be used to copy images from one (cooperative) web site to another. I thought maybe I was missing something special about fire fox...( don't use it myself)

 

[chessman]

1 day of rest is implied

Yes one day of rest consisting of how many hours?
How many hours has humankind experienced so far within God's 7th day of rest?

Hebrews 4:10 For the one who has entered into his rest has also himself rested from his works, just as God did from his own works.​

I've never understood where 24 hour 'days' come from anyway. Genesis, quite literally, does NOT define a 'day' as 24 hours or one revolution of the Earth. It defined a 'day' as light and a 'night' as darkness:

Genesis 1:2-5 Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. ​

Quite literally, "there was evening and there was morning" means 'there was darkness and there was light' NOT 'and there was 24 hours'.

 

[Randy]

Randy,

What you believe about the Holy Spirit being the Father's Spirit and not a separate person, is not supported by Scripture.

The Father is a distinct person where his being is referred to as a person by use of the pronoun, 'he'. See Matt 6:9-10, 32; 11:25; John 7:16-17; Gen 6:6.

Jesus, the Son, is a distinct person and is spoken of as 'he' and had characteristics of a person. See John 2:29; 6:38; 7:17; 11:35.

The Holy Spirit is a person who has attributes of personhood. See John 16:13; 14:26; 1 Cor 12:11. There are many verses that support the Holy Spirit as doing the activities of a person: Gen 6:3; Lk 12:12; John 3:8; 16:7-8; Acts 8:29; Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 2:11; Eph 4:30; 2 Peter 1:21, etc.

The Father is God. (Matt 6:8, 7:21, Gal 1:1);
Jesus is God from the beginning (Jn 1: 1-18);
The Holy Spirit is God (Jn 15:26, Mark 3:29, 1 Cor 6:19).

It doesn't say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and that the Holy Spirit is not God.

It's too late to try to convince me that the Holy Spirit is not a separate person and is only the Spirit of the Father. How come? The Bible tells me so.

Yours is an unorthodox doctrine.

Oz

Why did you avoid dealing with the Scriptures and emphases I raised about the separate persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

By the way, it is spelt Divine and not Devine.

Oz

God is Spirit.
Seriously- Why then did you not deal with "One Spirit of the One true God" . So how many Spirits of God do you believe in?

As the Son Jesus is a separate person from the Father with His OWN SPIRIT.

And God being God has the ability to send His Spirit into the world. He states so directly. In the last days I will pour out MY SPIRIT. You only perceive the Holy Spirit as person separate from God (Father). That is not stated so by the Father. Jesus does seem to state that Spirit is not Him. That Spirit dwells in Jesus with His Spirit and it that manner He and the Father are One. By whose Spirit was the creation made? By whose Spirit were the miracles performed? And by whose Spirit does Jesus live and never die as in made alive in the Spirit? The Fathers.
Jesus=>Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

So how many "Spirits" of God are there to you since you claim the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son? How do you believe in ONE God?

Jesus="Into your hands I commit my spirit"

I only hold to One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. And if you read acts, hebrews and Paul's sermon about the unknown God you will see that they indeed believed that the Father was God and Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Gods Christ and Son.

Now about "Jesus's" being it was quite clear that all the FULLNESS of the Deity or Godhead was pleased to dwell in Him. And about the Son He was with God in the beginning and God made the creation through the Son. And if Jesus isn't the Fathers Son then whose Son is He?

Jesus is "called" both God and Son. The Father has glorified His Firstborn Son Jesus above all other beings. No other offspring of the One true God the Father was given the Spirit without limit. It is self evident that the Father is the One who was pleased to have all His power and wisdom dwell in Jesus. Therefore Jesus is ALL that the Father is. Mighty God. But He is still Gods firstborn. Not God.

There is only one true God who is what He is. Jesus is what He is by the grace of that One true God.
About The Son who is called God.
psalm 45:6-7
Your throne, O God,will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.


Randy

 

[Cygnus]

There is no such thing as a simple everyday reading of Genesis. Scholars have discussed and disputed the passages for hundreds of years. Geisler is a top notch scholar. Don't dismiss his view so easily. As for the literal 24 hour period: I rejected that long ago. All you've done here is dismiss Geisler without any indepth analysis of his view, make a shallow statement about Genesis, and then attack those who hold to an old earth view. I see nothing here to convince me of your view.

Papa Zoom, I dismiss day/age theology for many reasons. The first i already mentioned...it goes against the simple reading.
Secondly most christians (Theistic- Evolutionist) do so to force fit the bible into an old earth God used evolutionism to create mankind.

If that is the case then there are several important biblical facts about what the bible teaches that need to be re-written. That being said creates problems for Geisler as well as you.

One of the first thing evolutionism does is it destroys the biblical reason and logic behind original sin and why we have a sin nature.

 

[calvin]

One of the first thing evolutionism does is it destroys the biblical reason and logic behind original sin and why we have a sin nature.

It gets rid of the need for a Saviour....Jesus too.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes one day of rest consisting of how many hours?
How many hours has humankind experienced so far within God's 7th day of rest?

I've heard that argument before..that is when taken to completion we're in the seventh day now. I suppose God was resting when He hung on the cross.
The day was what the bible simply speaks off....24 hours.

Hebrews 4:10 For the one who has entered into his rest has also himself rested from his works, just as God did from his own works.

OK, so you found a bible verse and snipped it out and posted it. Then you underlined a portion of it.....as if were suppose to get it. To be honest it looks like you took it out of context. Some how you tried to make this verse say a day is some sort of age...and I noticed you had to place that meaning into the verse. Why?

I've never understood where 24 hour 'days' come from anyway. Genesis, quite literally, does NOT define a 'day' as 24 hours or one revolution of the Earth. It defined a 'day' as light and a 'night' as darkness:

Although the book of Genesis may not actually define a day using the term 24 hours..... what it does do is express a time period using simple language the clearly represents a 24 hour long time period. The days are numbered and morning and evening are talk of...something that ALL OF US understand to be a 24 hour long time period.

Genesis 1:2-5 Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Quite literally, "there was evening and there was morning" means 'there was darkness and there was light' NOT 'and there was 24 hours'.

So, quite literally there was light for half an eon and darkness for the other half of the eon?

 

[Cygnus]

It gets rid of the need for a Saviour....Jesus too.

Paul tells us one man sinned...his name was Adam...and because of that all men now sin and need a savior named Jesus.
The Theo-Evo sect would have us believe this is not what really happened. They would have us believe that an evolving group of primates somehow began to sin.
You watch, as this discussion goes on I'll ask the Theo-Evo sect to explain how sin entered...and you won't get an answer. What you'll read is them saying...well, it's obvious that we sin and need a savior....always avoiding the answer to why we sin.

 

[Cygnus]

You didn't deal with the issues Geisler raised and you have the audacity to declare, 'Norman is wrong'. I'll consider Geisler's thoughtful approach rather than some of your assertions without evidence.

Oz

Here's the bottom line...if the earth is as old as you claim your great scholars believe and if God used evolution as a mean of creating man...then there was no such thing as the Garden of Eden. No center of the garden. No tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Heck, no Adam and Eve. No life breathed into them, No temptation. No fall due to the act of disobedience. No animal slain to cover their nakedness, It's all made up!!! A myth or some sort of allegorical poem.

When Paul or other authors of the bible mention it..they are mistaken. That's waht your great scholars preach.

Tell me OzSpen...why do we sin? What caused it? considering you can't use the Genesis explanation because your great scholars said Genesis never happened...what do they say?

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here,

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Kjv

I believe it is a bit hard to read a lengthy period of evolution into the plain teaching of Jesus.
'Yom' could mean a 24 hour day, or maybe it could mean a gazillion years,
however the plain teaching of Jesus is unmistakable; Adam and Eve had a specific beginning and although they personally had no father and mother, the family unit is well defined both in Genesis and in Matthew's gospel

 

[Free]

One must not forget that the earth can be old and still have six literal 24-hour days of creation, which may or may not be consecutive.

Many ways of looking at things. Much that needs to be taken into account.