God "CREATED" -- What it actually means.

[ScottA]

So you have a gnostic bent then? That physcial creation is only a shadow. That is wrong!

By whose definition???? Before creatiopn there was no creation, so how can we go back to something that did not exist!

"Gnostic"..No. They believed that all things have already past. I do not.

As for "going back"...I said "return." Which, sorry, both would imply the passing of time...which is true, because in the end...it has indeed come to pass. Hence the confusion.

But good--you are thinking with question marks! Meaning, we perhaps can discuss it.

The word of God is constructed in translation from what is spiritual and timeless with God, into the incremental time-based baby talk of the infant children of God, not yet even born [again] of His spirit. It was written to preemies! Let that sink in...and don't get caught up in the literary nonsense of seeing dimly.

Thus, the word of god is [only] spiritually discerned.

So...God has allotted Time for every purpose under heaven. But--then comes the end...and it has all been nothing more than a revelation of what God has chosen is necessary in order to proceed on with His actual creation according to the essence of His spiritual nature and kingdom (where Jesus has prepared a place for us), rather than this experiential side trip, revealing how we fell off the wagon.

But don't confuse what He has "created" with what He has "prepared." The natural comes to and end, but the spiritual does not.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Then why did you respond only to what would be considered natural...which you called "literal?"
Why did you not speak to the spiritual instead?
God is spirit.
Why don't you elaborate the spiritual now?
After all that is the point of the discussion.

God is simply telling us that He created the physical universe and everything in it. The spiritual aspect of it is that God did it, outside of our physical realm, supernaturally and with love. Nothing else is to be derived from the first sentence. There are signs, parables and lots of symbolism later on in the book, but the creation account is about what we can see, hear, touch, smell and taste. It is to be taken literally. The spiritual part comes when we have a relationship with Him. So a non-believer can read this first sentence and get it. He may not believe it, but he knows what it means. You are off on some weird philosophical tangent. It almost sounds like a different religion, maybe Buddhism, where life is really an illusion. ???
When people mess with Genesis, the story of creation, and distort it's meaning, the whole foundation of the Bible begins to collapse. If you symbolize or spiritualize scripture that is to be read literally, than the whole story is up for grabs. You can do that with the rest of the Bible, with Jesus, changing and symbolizing anything or everything He did. Then you come to Revelation and distort that to. Might as well just chuck the book if you are going to do that.
We are given a gift of faith that is tangible, based on the WORD, the truth (what is real), not illusions. We hold onto what Jesus did literally and spiritually, they aren't illusions and neither was the creation account. All in all, you can't cling onto much faith in the Book, if you thingk it is a bunch of mixed symbolic illusions that aren't really meant to be taken literally. This may be liberating to someone who just really wants to live the way they want to. But then one becomes lost in thier own manufactured illusions. Good luck with that.

 

[ScottA]

God is simply telling us that He created the physical universe and everything in it. The spiritual aspect of it is that God did it, outside of our physical realm, supernaturally and with love. Nothing else is to be derived from the first sentence. There are signs, parables and lots of symbolism later on in the book, but the creation account is about what we can see, hear, touch, smell and taste. It is to be taken literally. The spiritual part comes when we have a relationship with Him. So a non-believer can read this first sentence and get it. He may not believe it, but he knows what it means. You are off on some weird philosophical tangent. It almost sounds like a different religion, maybe Buddhism, where life is really an illusion. ???
When people mess with Genesis, the story of creation, and distort it's meaning, the whole foundation of the Bible begins to collapse. If you symbolize or spiritualize scripture that is to be read literally, than the whole story is up for grabs. You can do that with the rest of the Bible, with Jesus, changing and symbolizing anything or everything He did. Then you come to Revelation and distort that to. Might as well just chuck the book if you are going to do that.
We are given a gift of faith that is tangible, based on the WORD, the truth (what is real), not illusions. We hold onto what Jesus did literally and spiritually, they aren't illusions and neither was the creation account. All in all, you can't cling onto much faith in the Book, if you thingk it is a bunch of mixed symbolic illusions that aren't really meant to be taken literally. This may be liberating to someone who just really wants to live the way they want to. But then one becomes lost in thier own manufactured illusions. Good luck with that.

According to the Word, "the words are spirit." If you want to limit that to what is "literal" by the world's standard, that is contrary to what He said and on you.

The original language and meaning does mean something...and that is what I presented, nothing more. It's just apparently too uncomfortably different for you. So be it.

As for "the whole foundation of the Bible" collapsing...where's the faith in that? God is in control.

As for "symbolizing anything"...let me just check with the Lamb, you know, the Bread, I mean that Cornerstone, that Word...and I'll get back to you.

Scary huh!

 

[Robert Gwin]

The "house" reference is a good point confirming what the revelation of God having created all that we know of as the universe, as being the substance of signs and demonstration, rather than simply being the creation of things, or even flesh and blood.

The "house" reference points to where Christ went "to prepare a place for you"...meaning, "not of this world."

Jesus went to prepare a place for his bride sir. Much of our discussions revolve around what the Kingdom is. The Kingdom is a government that is coming that will remove all existing governments Scott, are you aware of this?

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

As for "symbolizing anything"...let me just check with the Lamb, you know, the Bread, I mean that Cornerstone, that Word...and I'll get back to you

As I noted, there is symbolic language throughout the Bible, but the creation account is not. It is given to us to answer the question: Where did this physical universe and life come from?
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are to be taken literally. I don't find any symbolism in them. Chapter 3 has a few symbolic statements.
The creation account is about the physical origins, the physjcal realm - it is historical. Much of the Bible is historical and we read about historical events literally. As anyone, (believers or not) reads the historical Biblical accounts of events they don't look for symbolism, just facts, in the same way they would read the Encyclopedia. Deeper spiritual insight comes when we believe in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. But any Rabbi can explain the OT historical events - heck they must memorize the entire book of Isaiah and understand all the scripture in the OT even though he is spiritually blind to Christ.

 

[ScottA]

Jesus went to prepare a place for his bride sir. Much of our discussions revolve around what the Kingdom is. The Kingdom is a government that is coming that will remove all existing governments Scott, are you aware of this?

Yes...but it began when all authority was given to Christ over all heaven and earth--back then, when He said it: Matthew 28:18

 

[ScottA]

As I noted, there is symbolic language throughout the Bible, but the creation account is not. It is given to us to answer the question: Where did this physical universe and life come from?
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are to be taken literally. I don't find any symbolism in them. Chapter 3 has a few symbolic statements.
The creation account is about the physical origins, the physjcal realm - it is historical. Much of the Bible is historical and we read about historical events literally. As anyone, (believers or not) reads the historical Biblical accounts of events they don't look for symbolism, just facts, in the same way they would read the Encyclopedia. Deeper spiritual insight comes when we believe in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. But any Rabbi can explain the OT historical events - heck they must memorize the entire book of Isaiah and understand all the scripture in the OT even though he is spiritually blind to Christ.

That's all well and good for a time, even a time, times, and half a time.

But you are missing the point that I am not making but only repeating: that the words are as much as foolishness if simply looked at as merely "literal" as the natural man and the world consider what is literal. And we, if we are born [again] of the Spirit, what by evidence of our actions should we gravitate to and favor...that which pertains to flesh and blood or the Spirit, that which pertains to this world or rather to the kingdom?

To which I now appeal, that the end might not be a rude awakening, but that we might awaken to God (whom is Spirit) first.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thus, the word of god is [only] spiritually discerned.

Define this! This is a very large red flag for people who reinterpret the Word of God and cll it spiritual discernment.

 

[ScottA]

Define this! This is a very large red flag for people who reinterpret the Word of God and cll it spiritual discernment.

This word comes from Paul, who was specifically sent by Jesus to the gentiles and indeed, the greater part of the church age:

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
​

This came after Joel the prophet foretold a time when God would pour out His spirit upon all flesh; was then arranged by Jesus who said He would be sending the Spirit of Truth to lead us into "all truth", the start of which was then confirmed by Peter at Pentecost. Thus, it is presently the order of the day.

As for it being "a very large red flag"...who are you referring to? Christians? And if so, where is their faith--do they not know that the victory is won already? More importantly, are they not willing to go where Christ has intended? Again--who are these people of such little faith??

But just so it is understood properly: God is spirit, and His plan for those who are His, is that we are born [again] of His spirit and made perfect as He is perfect--whose very essence is spirit. The gift of the Spirit is eternal life. Whoever does not want it, need not seek it, nor receive it. But whoever calls themselves a Christian ought not to speak against the Spirit, for this was what Christ died for--that we should have eternal life.

You who are kicking against the goads--stop, for it is anti-Christ!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

That's all well and good for a time, even a time, times, and half a time.

But you are missing the point that I am not making but only repeating: that the words are as much as foolishness if simply looked at as merely "literal" as the natural man and the world consider what is literal. And we, if we are born [again] of the Spirit, what by evidence of our actions should we gravitate to and favor...that which pertains to flesh and blood or the Spirit, that which pertains to this world or rather to the kingdom?

To which I now appeal, that the end might not be a rude awakening, but that we might awaken to God (whom is Spirit) first.

So there it is, you claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and I presume even both chapters 1 & 2 is foolishness.
Okay, we'll let it go for a time, times and a half of time.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I don’t think evolutionary creationist are as confused as the young earth / old earth theists make them out to be. Typically the paradigm is shaped by science and faith. The science is understood through the general consensus of 99.9% of the roughly 8,000,000 scientists around the world who are the experts in dozens of fields that all support the same theory. The theology is based off of the work of processors and scholars who are experts in biblical hermeneutics , biblical languages and ancient cultures. These two groups come together in agreement within evolutionary creationism as a group that upholds the scriptures as the inspired words of Yahweh though prophets and apostles while also upholding honesty and commitment to scientific and historical evidence.

I realize half of Christianity ( mostly Catholics) buy into this Theistic Evolution, where God started things out and then let evolution take its course. This is the problem. That view does not and can not harmonize with Genesis 1 & 2; which is why they must change the meaning ... "They aren't really days - they are epochs of time!"
No, the creation account plainly states it happened in six days (24 hour days), describing specifically the mornings and evenings of a day as we all are familiar with. The sun gives light during the day and the moon at night. This is not millions of years.
God made everythimg finished.
A fish is and always was a fish. It never evolved into anything else. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock. Man was made finished. Adam and Eve were human and likely as beautiful as we can imagine, perfect. Nature was perfect, no flaws or defects (also known as mutations).
I will agree that "micro-evolution" occurs, changes within the kinds. These are built into the genetic design as adaptive mechanisms. But "macro-evolution", change from one kind into another kind is a fabrication, flawed guesswork with no substance and lots of imagination and no evidence - just wishful thinking.
To join God's design with the traditional TOE is a travesty and a distortion, like mixing nourishing food with poison. Nature selecting beneficial mutations over millions of years does not harmonize with God designing the natural world with each creature in six days. He designed nature to reproduce itself as it is but not to become something else.

 

[Skovand1075]

I realize half of Christianity ( mostly Catholics) buy into this Theistic Evolution, where God started things out and then let evolution take its course. This is the problem. That view does not and can not harmonize with Genesis 1 & 2; which is why they must change the meaning ... "They aren't really days - they are epochs of time!"
No, the creation account plainly states it happened in six days (24 hour days), describing specifically the mornings and evenings of a day as we all are familiar with. The sun gives light during the day and the moon at night. This is not millions of years.
God made everythimg finished.
A fish is and always was a fish. It never evolved into anything else. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock. Man was made finished. Adam and Eve were human and likely as beautiful as we can imagine, perfect. Nature was perfect, no flaws or defects (also known as mutations).
I will agree that "micro-evolution" occurs, changes within the kinds. These are built into the genetic design as adaptive mechanisms. But "macro-evolution", change from one kind into another kind is a fabrication, flawed guesswork with no substance and lots of imagination and no evidence - just wishful thinking.
To join God's design with the traditional TOE is a travesty and a distortion, like mixing nourishing food with poison. Nature selecting beneficial mutations over millions of years does not harmonize with God designing the natural world with each creature in six days. He designed nature to reproduce itself as it is but not to become something else.

I disagree because I study the Bible and read science books.

 

[Skovand1075]

This is why I’m not bothering to dig to deeply into a debate with you. That’s not even what most evolutionary creationist believe. Like we don’t believe the days represents epoch of times. That’s silly. That’s old earth creationist.

I say genesis 1 is completely fiction. God inspired someone(s) to write a Jewish mythology on creation to convey truth.

I suggest reading some books by evolutionary creationist, not OECist in order to understand their position. Now I understand yours. I believed it until I studied it and learned about basic science. I then did not abandon my faith, but looked at what biblical scholars had to say and realized it’s all it’s easily harmonized.

 

[ScottA]

So there it is, you claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and I presume even both chapters 1 & 2 is foolishness.
Okay, we'll let it go for a time, times and a half of time.

No...not foolishness at all. It is the history of the world...the point being that history is not His spiritual story, without spiritual discernment.

It's both.

 

[ScottA]

This is why I’m not bothering to dig to deeply into a debate with you. That’s not even what most evolutionary creationist believe. Like we don’t believe the days represents epoch of times. That’s silly. That’s old earth creationist.

I say genesis 1 is completely fiction. God inspired someone(s) to write a Jewish mythology on creation to convey truth.

I suggest reading some books by evolutionary creationist, not OECist in order to understand their position. Now I understand yours. I believed it until I studied it and learned about basic science. I then did not abandon my faith, but looked at what biblical scholars had to say and realized it’s all it’s easily harmonized.

Welcome!

I suppose this is as good a time as any, a cue perhaps to say that all of creation is a the manifestation of things on high...to each his own, true or false, good or evil, according to each by their own measure. Then comes the end, and the Judgment.

Thus, if one believes what is correct according to God who has revealed the truth, he is in accord with God. But to those who are not in accord with God, it is unbelief. Even so, all is manifest to all.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
​

created H1254 H853

The KJV translates Strong's H1254 in the following manner: create

And here's the kicker-- H853 contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly, self:

The KJV translates Strong's H226 in the following manner: sign(s) (60x), token(s) (14x), ensign(s) (2x), miracles (2x), mark (1x).
​

In other words...

God, by mere signs and tokens (parables) has/is demonstrating His "self" by revelations.
​

The world is not the "reality" that it would appear to be.

I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings of old,
3 Which we have heard and known,
And our fathers have told us. Psalm 78:2-3​

Good bye.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Yes...but it began when all authority was given to Christ over all heaven and earth--back then, when He said it: Matthew 28:18

No sir, Jesus returned to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father until he would take the Kingship at the end of the appointed times of the nations.

I guess it might be best if you state the beginning and ending of that time period, I explained my beliefs on it, it started with the removal of Zedekiah and ended with the enthronement of Jesus.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As for it being "a very large red flag"...who are you referring to? Christians? And if so, where is their faith--do they not know that the victory is won already? More importantly, are they not willing to go where Christ has intended? Again--who are these people of such little faith??

But just so it is understood properly: God is spirit, and His plan for those who are His, is that we are born [again] of His spirit and made perfect as He is perfect--whose very essence is spirit. The gift of the Spirit is eternal life. Whoever does not want it, need not seek it, nor receive it. But whoever calls themselves a Christian ought not to speak against the Spirit, for this was what Christ died for--that we should have eternal life.

You who are kicking against the goads--stop, for it is anti-Christ!

No I am referring to an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. By this I mean those who say in some way shape or form "The Bible says this, but this is what it really means."

There is only one interpretation of Scripture, but for a passage that is not a doc trinal command, there can be many applications. but application is not interpretation. By this I mean- when God said there were six days of creation- there were only six days of Creation. Or when Jonah was swallowed by a large fish- He was. As a jail chaplain, I spent 4 months on Jonah and applications to be learned from this true account, but Jonah actually took place.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thus, the word of god is [only] spiritually discerned.

And when you have 30 believers discerning a passage 30 different ways- who is right? How you seem to be saying this is the major problem in the church today! People are busy reinterpreting Scripture so that they no longer teach the Word of God, but their spiritually discerned reinterpretation.

the natural man does not even understand or accept teh bible as written! Spiritual discernment is understanding what Gods inpsired to be written and not what we should read between the lines.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Because from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1) the "creation" is defined as a mere "demonstration" to reveal rather than form. The point being that the creation is rather, as it is with man, an "image" of what is to be. So, rather than God's intentions resulting in an unintentional fall, that is later corrected...it was all rather intended too be simply for revelations...whereby our returning to Him would actually be us returning to what was even before the foundation of the world. By definition.

This is too mystical for me.