Comment on Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? by Bob Orrick.
A comment on “the stars also”.
1. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that God created the heaven (plural in Hebrew) and the earth. But it does not say when, except “in the beginning.”
2. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that there was a formless earth and the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Please notice that it does not specifically state WHEN the earth or the waters were created, presumably in the beginning.
3. Genesis 1:3 clearly states the first specific act of the six day creation, the creation of light. Also notice that that the light source is not identified.
4. Genesis 1:5 closes with “the evening and the morning were the first day.” Actually word “first” is poor translation. A better word would be “one” (check the Hebrew words for first and one). When the correct word “one” is used, we are given the definition for a “day”. “… the evening and the morning were one day”. The same word was used when man and woman were joined together as “one” flesh.
5. Genesis 1:16 says “… he made the stars also.” This statement is ambiguous. It could mean he made the stars on day four or the use of the word “also” could indicate that the statement is parenthetical. Although God created them, it did not happen on day four. The parenthetical interpretation would suggest that the stars were made at the time of verse one and before verse three. I favor the latter interpretation, but I could be wrong.
NOTE: Verse 14 says the lights were to be for establishing “… days …” among other things. Since there is no change in the definition of the day since verse five, it is reasonable to believe that all the days of creation are approximately the same duration as the days we have today, which are of course determined primarily by the “rising” or “setting” of the sun.
Bob Orrick Also Commented
How can you argue with a definition given by God (one flesh)? One may find it difficult to understand, but who says we have perfect understanding?
Genesis chapters 1-3 are to be taken literally, using God’s definitions and symbolisms.
The serpent tempted Eve. Did a common snake tempt Eve? In Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 Satan is called “that old serpent” along with other names or titles. Again God is doing the naming and calling. To determine what is literal and what is figurative often requires a reasonable grasp of the whole Bible and even then there may be uncertainties. The point is, do the interpretations “fit”, do they make sense, is there some logic to it? But even with all this an element of faith may still be required, but it is definitely not blind faith and the main thrust and focus should be discernible.
I believe you misread Genesis 2:5-9. Notice that man became a living soul in verse 7. Then in verse 8 God planted a “garden”. This was a special creation to be man’s “home”. And God put man “whom He HAD formed” into the garden. God did not form man in the garden. The garden was created after the general creation that is recorded in chapter 1. Apparently the garden was also created on day six after the general creation. Eve seems to be the very last of God’s creative work, except for the defining of the Sabbath as the seventh day.
In Genesis 1:5 God called the light “Day” and the darkness “night”. But one “day” is the sum of the darkness and the light. Please note that the words “Day” and “day” in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word.
Surely the terms evening and morning as well as their actual occurrence are items that are obvious to almost every one. Therefore since we determine the length of the day by the “going” and “coming” of the sun, evening and morning, how could could this be figurative? The definition of the literal day does not change throughout the scriptures. The definition of the word “day” without modifiers does have various meanings, but evening and morning make a tight restriction on the meaning of the word “day”.
If there is a figurative meaning perhaps the it would found in “one flesh”. But I do not believe that for the following reasons.
1. “one flesh” is obviously the sum of one man and one woman. They are defined by God as “one” unit.
2. This is confirmed by Jesus as recorded in Mark 10: 2-12. “from the beginning”, the perfect world, a man and his wife were to be considered “one flesh”, by God’s definition, not ours.
Recent Comments by Bob Orrick
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
Shane’s comments of 10-12-11 and Susie’s comments of 10-13-11 are reasonable interpretations of recent events.
It is too bad that the board’s discussions and actions are “secret” until a “sanitized” version is released. Open meetings should be the norm except in rare situations. But closed meetings are necessary for firm control.
It is obvious that opposing board members have been removed. Guess who will be nominated to replace them?
The joint statement is a PROPOSAL and it keeps the discussion open, much I suspect, to the dislike of Wisbey and Graham.
I find it difficult to understand why very little has been said concerning the numerous overwhelming scientific problems with the theory of evolution and the data that fits with the Biblical record. The focus needs to be there. Belief in evolution is as faith based as the belief in creation.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
re: Comments by Bill Sorensen and Faith.
Will the SDA denomination be the end time “Church”?
1. Consider that in the book of Revelation God calls His people out of Babylon.
2. These are already His people. They do not have to be converted.
3. There is no mention of any of God’s people being outside of Babylon.
4. Though His people are called out of Babylon,they are not told where they should go, such as to Jerusalem, Zion, His Holy Mount, or to join “the remnant” or the 144,000, etc.
To me this implies that an organized “church of God” will not exist. This also would mean that the SDA denomination will have been driven out of existence as a functioning unit or will have fallen away from following the Lord (because of item #3 above, this seems the most likely outcome).
Reference: “ice rings”.
I have no doubt that “ice rings” may be fairly accurately counted. But how is it known that one “ice ring” represents one year? Just because there seems to be one “ring” currently deposited per year, does that justify the belief that the current rate has been consistent for 400,000 years? Could one imagine conditions that would deposit multiple “rings” per year? I certainly can.
In my comment on DNA containing information, I had wished to restrict my point to the “origination” of information, not to the copying, addition to, deletion from, rearranging, or other manipulation of existing information.
Also I would submit the we have “information” only if it is possible to read (or decoded) it, otherwise it is noise or random “characters”. As you pointed out, having “meaning ” is the key.
Are you able to show by scientific testing or experiment that there are “400,000 years of ice rings…..”? Please explain how you would perform such a test or experiment.