The Creation...which is the true version, or should we believe other theories?

Question

GENESIS 1: The Seven Days Creation Story

Day 1 - Light and darkness: day and night
Day 2 - A "vault" separating the 'waters' that make up the oceans and the (blue) sky
Day 3 - Earth, followed by plants
Day 4 - The Sun, Moon and stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5 - Animals
Day 6 - Humans (
Day 7 - A day of rest

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created.

GENESIS 2: The Story of Adam in Eden

First, God made earth and heaven.
Then he placed Adam on an otherwise lifeless Earth.
Next he made plants grow in Eden, including the trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil.
Then he placed Adam in this garden.
Only then did he create animals.
Finally, he made Eve from Adam's rib.

Answer 1

Those are the initial lies from the bible.
The right thing is this.
First was the big bang, 20 billion years ago.
Second our solar system began to work 4,5 billion years ago.
If you adequate this to God, that guy is very lazy, he spent more than 20 billion years to create the humans, and now is in rest.
Does anybody knows how long will take this rest?

Answer 2

Well what was a day, I mean there was no such thing a day, so in that time a day could have been a hundred years, or lots more, but saying a day is much easier for a man of the times of when the Bible was first written to understand. The story of Adam and Eve, we all take it Adam was a man as we know today, made in God's image, but God is not human I believe that we all started of little tiny organisms and when man tyred to write about it he called the first two Adam and Eve, which made it easy to understand

Answer 3

Genesis 1. is in historical chonological order.
Genesis 2. is a description of events, not in chronological order.

What about all the Other Creation Stories
By Bruce Malone

One of the frequent objections for allowing the teaching of creation in public schools is that if "creationism" is taught, all other different cultural stories concerning creation would have to be brought into a science classroom. This is a classic example of a "red herring" argument. This strategy of those opposed to exposing students to the scientific evidence for creation is done to paint the scientific evidence for creation as a religious concept. Evolutionists hope to equate the scientific evidence for creation with ancient creation myths, such as the absurd idea that the entire universe hatched from the egg of a large bird.

The primary desire of creationists is to have science taught in science classrooms. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening today. The current situation is that minor changes in animals (variations which are already encoded onto the DNA of the creature) are being presented as proof that one type of creature turned into a completely different creature. This is a religious belief, not science. Science is based on testable observations, and the creation theory, unlike ancient mythologies, is very testable.

The creation theory states that complex ordered information requires an intelligent source. This is exactly what we find in the DNA molecule, and if the same type of code were found coming from outer space, it would immediately be recognized as having had an intelligent source.

The creation model predicts that there is a limit to natural genetic variation. In other words, one type of creature does not turn into a completely different type with totally, newly-functioning features. This has been experimentally confirmed as the mutation rate of fruit flies has been accelerated by millions of times and nothing new has ever developed. Furthermore, no links between major forms of animals have been found in the fossil record. This confirms that biological variation has always been limited.

The creation theory states that new forms of animals do not just appear and over the last millennium hundreds of creatures have disappeared, while no new type of organism (such as a bumble bee or mosquito) have formed. New viruses and microbes result from the rearrangement of information already present on existing microbes. This does not tell us where these organisms came from or how they could turn into completely different type of organism.
The creation theory says that there has been a massive worldwide flood which would have buried and fossilized creatures by the billions. This is exactly what we find and there is abundant geologic evidence supporting the reality of this relatively recent catastrophe.

Every scientific experiment ever performed has shown that chemicals fail to react in ways which result in the formation of living organisms. This is what the creation model predicts.
Unlike all other creation myths, the creation account and worldwide flood described in Genesis is full of testable, observable predictions which can be explored in science classrooms.

Unfortunately, evolutionism holds a firm grip upon most of the scientific community because science has been redefined to eliminate the possibility of an intelligent Creator. It's time to give students all the evidence and let them decide for themselves which theory holds up best under close scientific scrutiny.

Answer 4

the single element that has pushed greater people from god than the different is the habit of christians frequently. and the loudest christians in specific. this brings approximately an equivalent yet opposite reactionary thinking against all issues non secular. not sure what style of scientist could evaluate the two creationism or evolution to be actuality. no longer something very own. peace

Answer 5

Don`t get wrapped up in this..... The bible was written 500 years after the fact wasn`t it!?.....Its like Chinese whispers and man made rules for goodness sake. Most of it was borne by man to control.

Follow your heart it knows whats right and wrong, lead by example, find things out for yourself not just because someone has told you!!

Its good that you are already questioning... I think the one thing all religions have in common is love.. follow that and you can`t go wrong eh.

Answer 6

the bible is an elaborate story. e.g. skip forward to the story of Noah and the great flood. He was told to preserve two of every species of animal, which was great - until he got to ducks! On being told that there would be a flood, the ducks replied, - "SO!! We swim down here - if there's a flood, we swim up there" (enough said!). Stick to the scientific explanations, much more logical!

Answer 7

Here's the REAL starting point of Faith:

If YOU believe in God the Almighty Creator, then Creation really becomes an academic and moot point, don't you agree??

Peace be with you.

Answer 8

Genesis contradictions?
In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?

by Don Batten

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heaven’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:la).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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?’

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

Answer 9

Gen. Chapter 1 is a poem which fact many people can't grasp.

Answer 10

God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, using His noodle appendages. It can be verified online :

http://www.venganza.org