The Book relating to Biblical Creation Theology and titled �BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH� by J. da. S. F. Martins, poses a very serious challenge to the traditional and modern six-day Young Earth creationists.
According to the tenets of the traditional and recent Young Earth Creationism, Genesis 1:1 is supposedly inclusive of the work of the six days. However, God's six-day work actually begins from the first day as in Genesis 1:3-5 and not from Genesis 1:1-2 as is commonly believed. As such, according to the Author, the true Biblical Six Day-Creationism is as described in Genesis 1:3-31, and doesn't include Genesis 1:1-2. Accordingly, Genesis 1:1 is a distinct creation account in itself describing God's primeval perfect creation in the eternity past. This scriptural fact is corroborated by Proverbs 8:22-31 which if properly interpreted refer to pre-Adamic life on the primal earth of Genesis 1:1.
Subsequently, Genesis 1:2 is not a work of direct creation as is assumed by the traditional six-day creationists. Instead, Genesis 1:2 describes chaotic conditions on earth which when objectively studied depict a judgmental outcome on earth as a result of Lucifer's rebellion as described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. In view of this, the controversial Gap Theory is biblical and, therefore, acceptable. The Author, therefore, deals extensively on the subject of the so-called Gap Theory and proposes �Pre-Historical, Pre-Adamic Biblical Gap Theology", which is prayerfully worth pondering.
It is now left to serious Biblical Scholars and Theologians to disprove Author's interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible, as relied upon by him; in particular, his interpretation of Proverbs 8:31 as referring to pre-historical life on earth including pre-Adamic 'sons of men' then living on earth, very much prior to the creation of Adam and Eve some 6000 years back. The true Six-Day Biblical Creationism, according to the Author, is actually an account of re-creation of new life forms after their original kind, and only of Man after God�s Image and Likeness, as is briefly but comprehensively described in Genesis 1:3-31.
In his Book, BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH, The Author delves and describes in detail three phases or epochs of God's works of creation, after debunking the mythical theory of biological evolution of man. Finally, the Author gives a brief explanation of man's new spiritual creation in Christ thereby beautifully depicting the evangelical aspects of God's works of creation. The Book is certainly worth reading, more so, as a polemic in creation theology.
Been there done that! Your author fails to build a compelling case against the clear, natural, straight forward reading of Genesis 1. The passage clearly defines the order of creation as it began in vs 1. Seems your author does not trust God's infallible eyewitness testimony but prefers to trust the fallible testimony of men who are ashamed to believe God completely and who were not present during creation
Obvious incorrect reading, Genisis actually includes two accounts of creation side by side (one is actually older than the other). Each account tackles what it describes in a different manner.
Science also points to a much older universe. There is a certain distance light can travel in a year. Now, if there are distant stars that are more than, let's say a million light years away from us, then how can we see their light today? The only possible explanation is we can see their light because the universe has existed for more than a million years so light had enough time to travel from the star to our retina in our eyes. If the universe was only 6000 years old, we would only see a handful of stars!
Now, of course, couldn't have God created a universe which appears much older to deceive us? to make us think that it has already been there for billions of years? But why would God want to deceive us? If God had done that, it would be like me setting up a crime scene in the middle of the road just to make people stop and look and think that something bad happened there when in fact nothing happened. lol
I think, a lot of stories might be left out of the Bible. For example, there may be other races that are not related to us. There may be other earth-like planets with people or animals on them. But the Bible doesn't talk about them, because our Bible was written to us and for us. It is not meant to have a universal explanation for everything. The purpose of the Bible is to give us a basic idea about what happened and how we can live successfully and go to heaven in the end. It tells us how to live wisely.
Many people falsely assume that if something isn't in the Bible, then it didn't happen. For example, they count how many times Jesus said this or used a certain word in the Gospels or how many miracles He did and so forth. You know, Jesus probably said a lot more words than what is written in the Bible, and He performed a lot more miracles than what is mentioned in the Bible. (See John 21:25) Just because something is omitted from the Bible doesn't mean it never happened, and so when we study Creation, we have to keep that in mind. There might be billions of years that are not mentioned in the Bible. And guess what, it's okay. The Bible is not meant to be a textbook about the full history of the universe. It only contains information that might be relevant to us.
There are not 2 accounts of creation!! Chapter 1 clearly chronicles each day of the 6 day creation. Chapter 2 summarizes the first chapter and provides additional detail not covered in chapter 1, ya can't miss it!!!!!!
No that's just the effect. What people forget is that Genesis is not actually a single "sat down and wrote it" books, it's a edited together anthology of the total historical knowledge the Hebrews had orally amassed up to that point. Nothing in it conflicts but it has multiple instances of differing accounts in that different viewpoints are represented. The new testament mirror is the Gospels where no one book exactly mirrors another and certain sequences SEEM out of order... an obvious but not exhaustive counter to that is that perhaps Jesus did some things many times over and and only a few instances were thought useful enough to put down in writing by each writer, still in the correct order but each writer remembering a different instance at the time. The Bible as we know it is an incredibly complicated work with a long and complicated history, it can be taken at face value but so can nature... which never ends well. I compare the two because God did three great works: Creation, the Word formed as the Bible & the Word formed as Jesus. It is best to approach none of these three looking straight into them at face value, they deserve more respect than that. It's fine to start off with the faith of a child but all children must grow up eventually, God expects it of us.
Silver, everything you said in your lengthy message amounts to speculative philosophy not science. Check it for yourself. The precise one way speed of light has not been determined scientifically, even Einstein agrees. As I said to Rambo: Everything you've said is simply asserted without evidence! It's fun to speculate when you're unfettered by fact!!!!
Well excuse me for not being a literature scholar and actually having to rely on logic for piecing together what I can remember from reading what actual scholars have written rather than just blindly following tradition and knee-jerkingly shooting down arguments as "speculation" rather than properly refuting them myself.... prove me wrong with what you regard as actual proof rather than pseudo-intellectual intimidation and I will stand corrected. Also perhaps give me the benifit of doubting that I have swallowed anything from any of these people hook line and sinker? A brain that is not exercised rots away until it can only repeat what others have said, this is why tradition must always be questioned and why Jesus had so many quarrels with the intellectuals of His day. They wanted proof and signs for everything even though what they wanted proof of was obvious as day and they blindly believed what their teachers had taught them never thinking to question anything. What's the point of claiming to follow God with your mind, heart and soul if you don't actually use all three to their gifted potential? If you are simply a sheep that baaahs where it seems appropriate are you REALLY giving the best you have to offer or are you being lazy and/or cowardly?
I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of this but I mostly know enough by now to not be fooled by anyone that claims monopoly on the truth, including everyone I have ever learnt from and the author of this book the thread started with. I have some measure of intelligence and the ability to reason things through to wherever God wants me to go and I refuse to be a lazy coward but I'm just crazy like that. It's not just speculation that the first few chapters of Genisis are a edited together compilation of different viewpoints of that same things, it's obvious from the structure... which one can see by simply reading the whole thing from start to finish.
Remember that God being the final editor of the Bible had to work with a LARGE number of imperfect writers and editors. Like having to write with broken pencils and pens with air bubbles. That even one of the larger books ended up as well as and as properly preserved as they did is a miracle in itself if you even vaguely know something about global history and human frailties. Admitting that the final product is not equal in perfection to God himself does not detract from it's perfection nor make it even slightly fallible. That said though elevating the Bible to the point of complete perfection makes a Idol of it the same way elevating nature does of it, both being equal in being creations. Give credit where it is due not where it is comfortable.
Honestly I feel insulted at being accused of simply speculating everything. I do speculate sometimes and when it happens I freely admit it. Refuting someone by simply accusing them of basically "making it all up" while giving no proper response and figuratively putting the fingers in the ears and spouting a stupid song says a lot more about the accuser than it does about the accused.
Yes silver is correct, the writers of the Gospels for example (I forget how many maybe one maybe all) in the books themselves admit that they never attempted to write down every little thing Jesus did, to do so being impossible. John 21:25 comes to mind atm.
That was just a blink of time compared to everything else in the bible, in fact the first few chapters of Genesis is so condensed that even though you can extract rooms of books (in the very least) from them they barely scratch the surface of what happened at the time.
Christianity's shame is that there are heathens that give the Bible higher more well thought out awe and praise than most of us even think of doing even though they don't believe in it as we do. It is partly this blatant shame that repels them from believing because they cannot stomach the intellectual hippocrasy... personally I refuse to be so self-idolatrous as to believe that anything I believe is true simply because I believe it. I at least give the Bible the respect it deserves of testing where I need to without fear that I might accidentally prove it wrong.
I'm putting too much emotional energy into this...
Rambo, you might start by exchanging your emotional outbursts, accusations and name calling with facts that support your conclusions. Up to now you and Silver have simply typed up wild assertions about how unreliable Bible is to the both of you. Neither of you have proved anything other than to express your ignorance. If you want to have a meaningful dialogue then start presenting some facts that support you conclusions and I will respond likewise. Nevertheless, if you insist on merely asserting things without the benefit of fact, I will likewise refute by assertion.
