Tag Archives: Genesis 1

• 2 Comments

•

layers

I've read on this for a while (years) and I remain a creationist.  I believe that God created - not evolved.  I don't think that God-directed evolution is correct.  God created.

I'm just not sure that the "day" of Genesis 1 represents a literal 24-hour period.

Then Justin Taylor wrote "Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods"

One of his points I've heard before.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Okay...are we reading a prelude, a heading title, or a summary of what follows?

Taylor writes:

Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

This is not a title or a summary of the narrative that follows. Rather, it is a background statement that describes how the universe came to be.

In other words.

At some point in the past, God created the universe.

Then (starting in Genesis 1:2) He formed our planet into our place.

At some point, the universe came into existence, then some time later,

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Genesis 1:2-3)

In this case, even the six days of creation took place inside of a larger history.

 

•

I've been "easing" toward different eating habits over the last few years, but mostly playing with it.  Eating "Primal" for breakfast doesn't do much good when you throw in a Snicker's bar for lunch.  A couple of years ago I gave up wheat for Lent and was surprised at the difference.  Now, I go for a few days, then slip.  (Today is "day one" after lunch yesterday.)

The "Primal Blueprint" is the plan that I like best.  The author's blog is "Mark's Daily Apple" and I've gleaned a lot (including recipes) from that site.

There's also "Paleo" - the biggest difference is that Primal is a lot more flexible.  A little dairy, a little rice, morning coffee...

Both emphasize "clean eating" - but their basis is not my basis.  I read "Cultured Mama" who wonders if "paleo/primal" is Biblical?   Granted, they base their eating plans on the assumption that humans evolved into eating whatever they eat.  I believe that God created humans fully evolved.

However...God gave us food.  And it does seem to indicate that (in the beginning) humans were vegetarians.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Not until Noah, did humans have the "green light" to eat meat.

Where does that leave primal/paleo?

1 - in order to answer that, you need to separate the eating plan and science, from the philosophical reasons for creating the plan.  If you take away "evolution" reasons, what you are left with is a basic "grain/legume/frankenfood-free" eating plan that encourages you to choose foods that have been raised cleanly and without hormones, additives, artificial fertilizers.

Remember - NOBODY  EVER DIED FROM NOT EATING WHEAT.

On the wheat topic - what kind of wheat?  What we know as "wheat" today is very different than even the wheat that was grown 50 years ago.

Well for starters, the wheat we eat today is not the same wheat of 50 or even 100 years ago. Since the demand for wheat is so high (second biggest crop in the U.S., second only to corn), scientists have been genetically modifying the plant to make it grow faster and produce higher yields. This means that wheat is not rich with nutrients and health benefits like it once was.

Wheat now qualifies as a "frankenfood" - also, check out this article on "wheatbellyblog"

I guess this turned out to be about wheat - and that's okay.  Every time I eat wheat, I cough.  And cough.  Clue bus?

 

• 1 Comment

•

I haven't done this for a while - when I'm blogging nearly daily, on Monday (lunes, from when I was taking Spanish classes) I gather all the open tabs from my blog reader and post what I thought were the most interesting ones.  (It has a purpose for me also - if I remember a post that I want to read again, if I put it here, I can find it.)

Fifty Fruits of Pride - a self-diagnostic; from Gospel Centric

~~~

I've been doing reading on Genesis and the creation story -

The meaning of "expanse" in Genesis 1; from True Paradigm

~~~

The Theology of Blame Shifting; from Jonathan Moorhead

No one is guilty of their sin anymore! It is always someone else’s, or something else’s fault. If it’s not your how your parents treated you, then it’s your genes, your surroundings, or maybe even the Devil made you do it. We are all victims!

~~~

On the political side: Hero vs. Zero (one of a series - with lots to work from - from HillBuzz)

From the Advice Goddess Blog

Wearing Red On Friday Can Be Helpful...
...If you are, say, wandering into traffic while staring into your electronic binkie, it may help drivers stop soon enough as to only maim you instead of killing you.

(...)

@amyalkon Go naked on Friday to support anti-asshat-think. Wearing pink doesn't stop breast cancer, wearing red doesn't eliminate heart disease.

• 10 Comments

•

I have been reading and listening to a lot of Mark Driscoll, "The Radical Reformission". He has a lot of great things to say, but I'm increasingly hearing things that I don't like - which I intend to address directly to him.

One of the things that he says in his book is that external things don't matter - and specifically mentioned "goth" as a way of dressing. Here's the thing - I work in a high school and there is a dark spirit (way of feeling, not demon) that accomanies that dark way of dressing.

Don't get me wrong - I like to wear black - it's dramatic and goes great with my complexion and you can accessorize very easily! But I hardly ever (ok, I just don't) wear black with dog collars, purple hair and black lipstick.

When you see a young person calling themselves a Christian, dressing in that way - it's okay to ask a few questions - like "what are they identifying themselves with?"

Another thing that concerns me about Driscoll is his way of speaking of certain groups of people. He consistently uses "limp-wristed" and other terms that are reserved for men who are - well, less than masculine.

I listened to a sermon last night on Genesis 1 - and he referred a couple of times to "hillybilly rednecks" and "hillbilly redneck NASCAR fans" This bothers me, because if his congregation picks up on this (or picks this up) they will have learned that in their church, it's ok to use pejorative terms that put down entire groups of people.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my kids talking like that - and I don't want to pick up talking like that.