Gênesis 1
J. Vernon McGee · Citado em PreceptAustin
Gênesis 1
Vernon McGee commenting on in the beginning said "You can estimate it as billions of years, and I think you would be accurate, but who knows how many?" Note how McGee glibly says billions in a chapter which describes 6 days! In my opinion this shows how powerful the deception of evolution has been in the American education system. Why didn't McGee include the possibility of "thousands?" Obviously he does not believe that a "young earth" is possible, which is sad because many trust his teaching in the Thru the Bible. In fact he believes in the so-called gap theory. I believe God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. I believe that God was present at the beginning and I was not, so that I will rely totally on what His inerrant, inspired Word teaches. Moses recorded these words and as Peter said we are to "know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation (I.E., GENESIS WAS NOT MOSES "INTERPRETATION"), for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but (CRITICAL TERM OF CONTRAST) men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2Pe 1:20-21+) In other words, these Words recorded by Moses in Genesis were (and are) inspired by the Spirit and did not come "about by the prophet's (Moses') own imagination." (2Pe 1:20NET) While there is no specific statement that Moses wrote Genesis there are several NT passages which imply that he was the author. For example John 5:45-47 (JESUS WHO IS "THE TRUTH" - Jn 14:6 DECLARED) “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” COMMENT - Where did Moses write about Jesus. Genesis 3:15+, the so-called protoevangelium, is clearly a prophecy of Jesus and His defeat of Satan, God declaring " I will put enmity Between you (SATAN) and the woman, And between your seed and her seed (MESSIAH); He (MESSIAH) shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Romans 10:5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. John 20:37 records "beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He (JESUS) explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." (Jn 20:37) Martin Manser on creation -The created order, established as a sovereign decision on the part of God. The creation is dependent upon and under the authority of its Creator. Scripture affirms the role of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the work of creation. The origin of creation reflects the free act of God based on his own wisdom and power, forming the whole natural order by his word. (Dictionary of Bible Themes) You cannot put one little star in motion; You cannot shape one single forest leaf, Nor fling a mountain up, nor sink an ocean, Presumptuous pigmy, large with unbelief! You cannot bring one dawn of regal splendor, Nor bid the day to shadowy twilight fall, Nor send the pale moon forth with radiance tender; And dare you doubt the One who has done it all? Sherman A. Nagel, Sr. The book of Romans gives us another reason that the truth about Creation is so critical. In Romans Paul describes the downward "devolution" of mankind, that has as one of it's main "starting points" the rejection of divine Creation. Paul records For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (ACTIVE SUPPRESSION - IMPLIES THEY KNOW THE TRUTH!), 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (HOW?) 20 For since the creation (ktisis) of the world (1) His invisible attributes, (2) His eternal power and (3) divine nature, have been clearly seen (DON'T MISS THAT STATEMENT - THEY SEE GOD'S HANDIWORK EVERYWHERE!!!), being understood through what has been made (NOTICE NOT THROUGH WHAT HAS "EVOLVED"), so that (PURPOSE) they are without excuse (THEY CAN'T SAY DARWIN MISLED THEM!). 21 For even though they knew God (SO MUCH FOR "ATHEISTS"), they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations (EVOLUTION, INCLUDING "THEISTIC EVOLUTION", ETC), and their foolish heart was darkened (DON'T MISS THAT STATEMENT - THEIR REJECTION OF TRUTH BROUGHT JUDICIAL HARDENING OF THEIR HEARTS!) . 22 Professing to be wise , they became fools (MEN LIKE RICHARD DAWKINS, BRILLIANT NOW BUT UTTER FOOLS IN ETERNITY!) , 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them (NO GOD MEANS "NO JUDGE" AND LEADS TO IMMORALITY!). 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for (the) lie (GOES BACK TO THE GARDEN - YOU CAN BE LIKE GOD KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL!!!), and worshiped and served the creature (SELF-WORSHIP) rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Ro 1:18-25+) "The Universe looks old because the Creator made it whole!" -- Albert Mohler Albert Mohler in a lecture at the Ligonier Conference addresses the question of "Why Does the Universe Look So Old" and ends his outstanding discourse (YOU MUST LISTEN TO THIS LECTURE!) by saying "I want to suggest to you that when it comes to the confrontation between evolutionary theory and the Christian Gospel, we have a head-on collision. In the confrontation between secular science and the Scripture, we have a head-on collision. I want to suggest to you that it is our responsibility to give an answer when we are asked the question, "Why Does the universe looks so old?" In the limitations of time, it is impossible that we walk through every alternative and answer every sub-question, but I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the Scripture of how to answer that question comes to this. The Universe looks old because the Creator made it whole! When He made Adam, Adam was not a fetus. Adam was a man. He had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would have required time for Adam to get old, but not by the sovereign, creative power of God! He put Adm in the garden. The Garden ws not merely seeds. It was fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole. Secondly...if I'm asked why does the universe look so old, I have to say it looks so old because it bears testimony to the effects of sin and testimony to the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the Scripture looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8, it is groaning, and in its groaning, it dos look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin. And even as this cosmos is the theater of God's glory, it is the the theater of God's glory for the drama of redemption that takes place here on this planet in telling the story of the redemptive love of God. Is this compatible with the claim that the universe is 4.5 billion years old in terms of earth, 13.5 billion years old in terms of the larger universe? Even though that might be the first and central question, it is an inescapable question, and I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the Scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the Gospel, an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text, as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters. At the end of the day, if I'm asked the question, why does the universe look so old I'm simply left with the reality the universe is telling the story of the glory of God. Why does it look so old? Well, that in terms of any more elaborate answer is known only to the Ancient of Days. And that is where we are left, and it is safe. Thanks be to God." (Why Does the Universe Look So Old? - 65' youtube video). How important is Genesis 1:1? Henry
Gênesis 1
Vernon McGee - Genesis 1) This problem of origin provokes more violent controversy, wild theories, and wide disagreement than any other....There are a great many theories as to how the world began, but all of them can be boiled down to fit into a twofold classification: one is creation, and the other is speculation. All theories fall into one of these two divisions.....The biologist Edwin Conklin, speaking of evolution, stated that the probability of life originating by accident is “comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary originating from an explosion in a print shop.” That sounds very unscientific, coming from a scientist, but it’s true.....Dr. Lawrence S. Dillon, associate professor of biology at Texas A and M College, says that man is not an animal but a plant which evolved from brown seaweed. Now maybe you have been looking in the wrong place for your grandpa and grandma.....I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe. (J Vernon McGee - Genesis 1) QUESTION - How does the Cambrian Explosion fit within the framework of young-earth creationism? ANSWER - The earth’s crust consists of many layers of fossil-bearing rock. It was once believed that the lowest layer of fossil-bearing rock was the Cambrian and that Precambrian rock was totally devoid of any fossil remains. It is now known that there are actually some, though very few, primitive fossils in the Precambrian. But it is not until the Cambrian layer that we find a sudden burst of life. The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the sudden appearance of most of the world’s known animal phyla, all within a very brief period of geological time (by the conventional standard). The sudden appearance of so many of the major innovations to the basic structures of known animal forms has always been somewhat problematic for Darwin’s theory of gradual innovation. But how does the Cambrian Explosion fit with the framework of young-earth creationism? The old-earth position is that the vast majority of earth’s strata represent long epochs of time, typically millions of years, and that the fossils found in the lower layers evolved before those found in the upper layers. The young-earth position is that nearly all of the strata from the Cambrian period on up were deposited in relatively quick succession as the result of a catastrophic global deluge and subsequent natural disasters, and that the order in which fossils are found is a result of hydrological mechanics (hydrologic sorting for example, the phenomenon whereby dirt spontaneously settles into layers after being kicked up in water). The conspicuous presence of so many of the world’s known animal phyla in the bottom layer does not prove or disprove one position or the other. So young-earth proponents rely on other physical evidences to make their case, including poly-strata fossils (that is, fossils that pass through multiple strata), misplaced and missing fossils and strata, the lack of erosion between strata, the deficiency of bioturbation, undisturbed bedding planes, the limited extent of unconformities, soft-sediment deformation, and well-preserved surface features between layers, etc. There are, for example, plenty of out-of-place fossils. Sometimes rock layers containing what are thought to be older fossils are found above rock layers that contain what are thought to be younger fossils (the younger fossils should be on top). The solution for Darwinian geologists is to argue that the strata containing the misplaced fossils were shuffled out of order by some natural geological process. They then reorganize the discrepant fossils and rock layers logically using the assumed order in which the creatures were supposed to have evolved; i.e., this organism was supposed to have evolved before this one, so it goes here on bottom, while this organism was supposed to have evolved after this one so it goes here on top, etc. Darwinian biologists then turn around and use the evolutionary progression organized by the geologists as evidence for the evolutionary progression that the geologists used to organize the strata. This is, of course, circular reasoning. To summarize, each viewpoint, whether young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, or Darwinian evolution, struggles somewhat with explaining the Cambrian Explosion. In no sense, though, is the Cambrian Explosion contradictory with young-earth creationism. In fact, young-earth creationism perhaps has the clearest explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, that of the global deluge. Whatever the case, the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion is no reason to doubt the veracity of Genesis’ account of creation (Genesis chapters 1-2, 6-8). GotQuestions.org QUESTION - Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe? ANSWER - Prior to the twentieth century, before the Big Bang theory had been developed, philosophers and scientists debated whether the universe had a beginning. Some argued it had always existed: that it was “infinitely old.” This agreed with the worldview of ancient philosophers and then-current atheism. On the other hand, there were logical reasons to think the universe could not be “infinitely old,” such as causality. For most of history, there was no empirical evidence proving the universe had an objective “beginning.” Atheism particularly held to the idea of an “infinitely old” universe as a reason to dismiss God as unnecessary. This situation changed drastically in the first half of the twentieth century, as several discoveries were made leading to the formation of the Big Bang theory. Over several decades, those who preferred the idea of an eternal universe made many attempts to explain away hard evidence, but to no avail. The result was secular science lending tremendous support to the creation account of the Bible. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1916, suggested the universe either had to be constantly expanding or constantly contracting. So, Einstein added a “cosmological constant” to his equations, for no other reason than to maintain the possibility of a static, eternal universe. Einstein later called this the “biggest blunder” of his career. The work of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s proved the universe is expanding. This finding contradicted Einstein’s cosmological constant and left non-believing astrophysicists unhappy. Their discomfort was made even worse with the contributions of Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. Lemaître noted that the combination of general relativity theory and Hubble’s discoveries implies a beginning. If the universe is currently expanding, then at some time in the past, the entire universe would have been contained in some infinitesimally small point. This idea is foundational to the Big Bang theory. Over the next several decades, physicists tried to salvage the eternality of the universe by proposing everything from the Milne model (1935) to the steady state theory (1948). In many (if not most) cases, these models were proposed explicitly because the implications of a non-eternal universe were “too religious.” The year 1964 brought about the Nobel Prize-winning discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation—something predicted by the earliest Big Bang theorists in the 1940s. For all intents and purposes, that discovery made the “beginning” of the universe an inescapable fact of modern science. The question was no longer “did the universe have a beginning?” but “how did the universe begin?” Apparent evidence for the Big Bang, regardless of how one interprets it, is a stunning example of science and theology intersecting. According to objective, empirical science, all space, time, and energy came into existence together in a single moment: a “beginning.” Before this event, whatever it was, there was no time. There was no space. Then, suddenly, an exceedingly dense, incredibly hot, infinitesimal ball of something—everything—appeared somewhere, somehow for reasons unknown and began to expand rapidly with our whole universe inside of it. If true, the Big Bang theory all but confirms the view espoused by Judeo-Christianity for thousands of years. Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 18). It is important to note that, prior to the development of the Big Bang theory, disbelief in God was tied closely to the idea of an eternal, un-caused, and un-created universe. Afterwards, however, non-believers began to claim that these advances in science actually disproved God. What had always been interpreted as clear support for a Creator—and resisted for that very reason—almost overnight turned into the claim that atheists had been right all along. This attitude, unfortunately, led to a corresponding reaction from the creationist community. Just as many astrophysicists felt that the expanding universe theory was a ploy to inject religion into science, many Christians have come to feel that the Big Bang theory is an effort to undermine the biblical account of creation. Other Christians, however, feel that the Big Bang theory is consistent with the Bible’s account and welcome such compelling evidence for the universe having a beginning. With that said, it is important to understand that the Big Bang theory is just that—a theory. The exact nature or cause of that “beginning” has not been explicitly proved by empirical science, nor can it be. Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe? The idea itself—that the universe came into existence in an instantaneous expansion—is compatible with biblical creationism, as long as there is recognition that the ingredients and forces of the big bang were created by God “out of nothing” (see Hebrews 11:3). Scripture only says that God created the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1), speaking the universe into existence (Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 11:3). Could some of the evidence that appears to point to a “big bang” actually be pointing to God’s initial creative act? Possibly. At the same time, the Big Bang theory, as it is commonly presented by the scientific community, contains atheistic presuppositions and contradicts the biblical creation account. In that sense, no, God did not use the “Big Bang” to create the universe.GotQuestions.org QUESTION - What is the Intelligent Design Theory? ANSWER - The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1) irreducible complexity, 2) specified complexity, and 3) the anthropic principle. One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time. Another argument for Intelligent Design, specified complexity, is the concept that, since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. For example, a room filled with 100 monkeys and 100 computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe even a sentence, but it would never produce a Shakespearean play. And how much more complex is biological life than a Shakespearean play? The anthropic principle of Intelligent Design states that the world and universe are “fine-tuned” to allow for life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the atmosphere of the earth was altered slightly, many species would quickly cease to exist. If the earth were significantly closer to or further away from the sun, many species would cease to exist. The existence and development of life on Earth requires so many variables to be perfectly in tune that it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through random, uncoordinated events. While the Intelligent Design Theory does not presume to identify the source of intelligence (whether it be God or UFOs or something else), the vast majority of Intelligent Design theorists are theists. They see the appearance of design which pervades the biological world as evidence for the existence of God. There are, however, a few atheists who cannot deny the strong evidence for design but are not willing to acknowledge a Creator God. They tend to interpret the data as evidence that earth was seeded by some sort of master race of extraterrestrial creatures (aliens). Of course, their interpretation does not address the origin of the aliens, either, so they are back to the original argument with no credible answer. Intelligent Design Theory is not always exactly the same as biblical creationism. There are various interpretations of what Intelligent Design refers to. Biblical creationists conclude that the Genesis account of creation is reliable and correct, and so life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent: God. They see the facets of Intelligent Design as evidence from the natural realm that supports this conclusion. Other Intelligent Design theorists begin with the natural realm and reach the conclusion that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent, without specifying who that agent might be. In and of itself, Intelligent Design does not specify who the Designer or designers actually are. As such, Intelligent Design is compatible with biblical creationism, but it is not an inherently religious position.GotQuestions.org QUESTION - What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? ANSWER - Modern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design from various disciplines, from biology to astronomy, from physics to cosmology. The purpose of this article is to summarize some of the major arguments. What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will: 1. Be contingent 2. Be complex 3. Display an independently specified pattern Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern. Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules? What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle wrote, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars. Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life. What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that: 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal, and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being. What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.GotQuestions.org Genesis 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God: Ps 33:6,9 Ps 148:5 Mt 8:3 Joh 11:43 Let: Job 36:30 Job 38:19 Ps 97:11 Ps 104:2 Ps 118:27 Isa 45:7 60:19 Joh 1:5,9 Joh 3:19 2Co 4:6 Eph 5:8,14 1Ti 6:16 1Jn 1:5 2:8 Genesis 1 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries Related Passages: Hebrews 11:3+ By faith (pistis) we understand that the worlds were prepared by the Word (rhema - that which was said, the audible spoken word) of God (cf GOD SAID - Ge 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14), so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. COMMENT - Understand is noeo which means to grasp or comprehend something on the basis of careful thought. When you consider the truth of God's Word in Genesis 1, you must believe it (by faith) and then you comprehend that what God commanded, God carried out. Believing precedes understanding! Note also that prepared is katartizo (thoroughly prepared or equipped, made fully adequate and ready for use, ready to fulfill its purpose = no need to "evolve") in the perfect tense, indicating creation was a past completed act (creation in six 24 hour days) with continuing effect (creation continues to exist), absolutely negating the need for evolution. God's Word says it was finished. Our choice is to believe it or not. Henry