The Creation Museum
Posted on May 25th, 2007 by David Mackin into the David Mackin Writes: category The Creation Museum site states: “Our purpose is to equip you, our reader, with practical answers so you can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy.” and “Answers in Genesis [means] upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first
verse.”
My question: Is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ dependent upon a belief in a literal account of Genesis 1-11, that the seven days of creation were literal, 24 hr. days, or in a completely fundamentalist view of the Bible?
The Creation Museum site says, “Prepare to Believe!”
My question: Wouldn’t it be great if all people had to do in order to “believe” was to buy a ticket to Petersburg, KY and walk through a “state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum” using “realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats?” Oh, my gosh, the Creation Museum might be the ultimate answer for evangelism!
Each issue of the Creation Museum’s magazine, Answers, uses “stunning photographs,” “a detachable chart,” “a pullout children’s magazine,” etc.
My question: Just how will this magazine and the museum’s “fully engaging, sensory experience for guests” scientifically prove whether or not there was a literal Adam and Eve, whether there really was a Cain who killed his brother Abel, whether Noah’s flood was local or universal, whether the sun stood still in Joshua’s day, whether people can truly survive in the belly juices of a whale, whether the mustard seed is really the smallest of seeds, whether the Queen of Sheba really came from “the ends” of the earth to see Jesus, whether Jesus genuinely rose from the dead, or whether rabbits really “chew the cud” like cows (Lev. 11:6)?
Believer or skeptic, the admission isn’t cheap:
Adult (13-59 yrs) $19.95
Senior (60 yrs & up) $14.95
Children (5-12 yrs) $9.95
Children (under 5 yrs) Free
But, then, there are always rewards for making a donation: a free Handmade Ragtime Quilt! Some of the names of which are: "Behemoth is a Dinosaur," "When Dragons Hearts were Good," "Cat and Mouse," and "D is for Dinosaur." You can choose from the Ken Ham Collection, The Buddy Davis Collection and The Kay-Bug Collection.
RSS feed for posts
May 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“whether the Queen of Sheba really came from “the ends” of the earth to see Jesus”
of course you meant, Solomon, Queen of Sheeba traveled to see Solomon - but you meant that - of course.
I Kings 10:1
May 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
,
I think the queen of Sheba came to see Solomon, not Jesus…but that is besides the point. I understand how silly it is to think this is the end all of evangelism. However, look at how little evidence there is for evolution and yet it is what is predominantly taught in schools. I think the only reason we stopped to question a literal creation story is because we are intimidated by evolutionist to think that what they teach is scientific. This museum seems to me to be a great place to go and see how science and investigation acctually support the creation story. No harm in that.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
When I became a Chistain about 5 years ago, I knew one of the things I had to reconcile with my new belief in Christ was evlolution. I had learned it all throughout my high school and college education, and it was one of the major reasons I was a sceptic until my conversion.
One of the ministries I found when asking questions about evolution was Answers In Genesis. It helped me to see there is good scientific evidence to the other point of view (creation), and that neither side has all the answers (contrary to what I was taught in school).
I don’t think we should be dogmatic about science, but I do think we should be able to answer the people who are honestly looking for the alternative point of view. I don’t know if a museum will win people to Christ, but I know their material helped me to overcome a hurdle in my faith.
I don’t think Answers In Genesis has all the answers about historical science, but we live in a time where modern science thinks they have proved that God is dead.
I hope and pray they continue answering the questions of people like myself.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It’s impossible to “prove” creation or anything like that.
But what we can do is show there is an extremely low “probability” that macro evolution (as taught in schools) is a valid theory, and that pretty much every major field of science shows a very high “probability” that there is an intelligent design behind our world and our universe.
I agree with Craig’s statement that many non-christians struggle with the “facts” of evolution and it is a barrier to believing in the bible.
In fact, many christians are totally ineffective in the defence of their belief/faith in this area, and it is really sad.
If someone asked you to defend the bible, you would need to pretty much start with the first book. Basic stuff.
But how can the average christian do this if they still (intellectually in their minds) believe in evolution that was taught to them in school?
There’s a reason why the majority of scientists are converting from atheism (do not believe in god; typically believes in evolution) to agnostisicm (impossible to know; typically believes in intelligent design)…. but yet no effort has been made to correct the obvious fallacies being taught in public schools regarding evolution.
Anyway… I think every christian owes it to themselves to understand what they believe and why they believe it. Most christians believe in “creation”, but do so based only on a simple faith that is akin to a child believing in santa clause.
Such idiotic and blind faith isn’t necessary when there are huge mountains of evidence that point to the probability of intelligent design and creation. Even stephen hawkings believes that there was an initial start to our space/time, and that the universe is so finely tuned that the probability of anything other then an intelligence behind it is so remote as to basically be impossible.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Science does some things very well. Using repeatable, publicly verifiable
experiments, science has brought us many established facts, which are very useful for modern life.
Science, however, cannot go back in time and verify things which were never seen. That is why they call evolution a ‘theory’. It cannot be established as a fact. Science has been so successful that many people now equate a fact and a theory as being the same thing. The ego puffed up with success and knowledge hates to say “I don’t know”.
In our day, some very famous athiests have been honest enough to say they can no longer claim that we are alone in the universe. The facts and the math don’t allow it.
I am taken with the newer ’string theory’ of the universe, where there may be 11 or more parallel universes. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) Could repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ open the door to another kingdom? I think so!
May 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
String theory does not state there are 11 or more parallel universes. It states there are 11 or more possible dimensions that exist “around” (as in literally “wrapped around”) our four dimensions. (Our four dimensions being, length/width/hight/and linear time.) String theory postulates there are at least 11 additional space/time dimensions, which are “wrapped like strings” around the four dimensions that we can experience.
Mathematically, we can indeed “prove” that no less then 11 dimensions existed at the moment of the big bang, and that currently at least 3 additional dimensions can be “seen” within every atom and are believed to be how quantum physics works.
Stephen hawkings actually stated his book “A brief mention of time”, that multiple dimensions would have been necessary in order to account for the expansion patterns of the space/time we see today. His theory was further developed, and became known as string theory. Math “proves” it’s possible, and evidence “proves” it’s very probable.
In fact, the existance and use of multiple dimensions can be used to explain many things in the Bible.
(In other words, we can see how recent discoveries in science actually helps defend and substantiate some of the big claims of the bible.)
For example, multiple dimensions can easily explain the trinity. It can also easily explain how one literal moment in time of Christ’s actual death can simultaneously pay the penalty of sin for all past/present/future.
Feel free to ask how this is all possible — this area is a passion of mine and I love to help people see that “real world explainations” can be used to solidify and defend our faith.
Multiple dimensionality can also be used to explain how jesus was capable of walking through solid objects after his ressurection (when presumably he was in his glorified/new perfect body) and how he could “ascend” into the sky, and how he will reappear in the same way.
I find it absolutely amazing that the more science discovers and measures, the more it “fits” with what the bible declares as truth. There is not a single thing in the bible that can not be explained through modern science.
I find it sad that many christians have “belief” in the claims of the bible, in the same way they have “belief” in santa when they were younger. Literally there is no difference. Many christians believe in the biblical claims and ascertions, “just because” it’s what they were taught.. but they have no idea of the tremendous amount of modern mathematics, science, “probability” and evidence that actually supports their beliefs.
It’s sad, because many non-christians think “religion” and science can not co-exist. In fact, the bible is the only religious text that not only co-exists with modern science, but actually becomes stronger and more believable as a result of it.
:)
May 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Henri,
Thanks for staightening out my ’strings’!
I have read Hawkings book that you mentioned and found it very stimulating. I am amazed that I have not heard any of this from the pulpit….too busy trying to get more money I guess. It is really sad, the church could be so much more relevant to our society.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Couple of reasons I can think of to explain why:
1) The average “pastor” or “teacher” in the average church is totally uneducated when it comes to anything besides theology. I doubt most pastors can even do their multiplication tables without having to get a calculator. These “teachers” are totally ill-equiped to actually teach anything besides their interpretations of theology. Can you imagine Frank actually talking about multiple dimensions and how science can help verify jesus’s claims of deity?
2) It just isn’t interesting to most people. Well, I should rephrase that. The people who “teach” this stuff don’t make it interesting to most listeners. Do you remember highschool chemistry/math/physics? Did you lie awake at night with anticipation of going to class the next day? I doubt it. Why not? Science is really actually neat stuff, and is incredibly useful in everyday life. But people who teach it are often geeks who are really smart but horrible teachers. Same goes for christian scientists who actually know and can teach this stuff. They’re boring and… boring.
:)
I do agree that there should be more “reason” taught in churches. We get enough of the “faith” part — and without reason behind faith… we may as well believe in the tooth fairy.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Reminds me of the ‘New Holy Land‘ tour in Eureka Springs, Arkansas … Cheeze city, man … it was a day trip out of Branson, MO.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I’m down on Evolution myself and love the work that AIG has done for a while now myself. We actually had Ken Ham as a guest speaker at our church in Jersey a few years ago.
Now, this is a small matter of contention about word definition. From my understanding, a “scientific fact” is the predominant “theory” in the scientific field. In that regard, Evolution is a “fact” but “facts” can change in the world of science. What it is not, it a “law” which in science never changes. It’s just one more of those small points of confusion like the fact that all things evolve over time, but that gets confusing when talking about molecules-to-man Evolution since the terms have different meanings in different settings.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Adam sins again:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003596352
July 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’ll probably regret posting this, but here goes….
Peter, I grew up on all the AIG stuff. I own most of their videos, went to all the local conferences, and even got to have lunch one day with Ken. I debated evolutionists until they gave up, and believed that I had accomplished something. Then something bad happened. I *gasp* had to spend some time in a biology lab. Mind you there was no way any propaganda or worldly thought was going to get through my thick creationist armor. The problem is that you can see the proof with your own eyes. Of course this brought up some issues that required me to validate everything I knew about intelligent design. I went through all the material again, this time checking their citations. To be honest I was really mad. But I’ll let you do your own research. In my opinion if there’s ever going to be a good case for creationism (ID) it’s going to have to be done with more intellectual honesty than is currently the case. Stephen Colbert’s version of Truthiness just isn’t going to cut it.
I don’t want to get into a huge ID/evo debate (or wake the great Henri from his slumber) but it’s really bothersome when Christians start throwing around statement such as:
This type of incorrect statement will only continue to hurt the ID camp.
With all that said, here’s a good (I think) answer to the Fact vs. Theory statements .
Stephen J. Gould, ” Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981
July 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Doug broke my leg said:
I am curious on why you think the statement is incorrect, and how that hurts the ID camp.
I came from the exact opposite path as you. I believed in evolution since that was all I learned in science classes, presented as fact all the way through college. Now I see evolution for what it is, an interpretation of the facts…not to be confused with the facts.
Don’t regret posting this here, these are the types of discussions we need to have…otherwise we get stuck in the mire of propoganda.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:09 am
However, look at how little evidence there is for evolution and yet it is what is predominantly taught in schools.
You mean the gigantic amount of evidence for evolution? You mean the independent evidence refuting the bible that comes from Astronomy,Geology,Archaeology, Cosmology, Palaeontology and biology. Why that’s bearly any evidence at all. Of course evolution is biological idea but I suppose you believe the any scientific idea that doesn’t support bible literalism is “Evolution”. You really should become more informed before you post this utter nonsense on the internet!
“I think the only reason we stopped to question a literal creation story is because we are intimidated by evolutionist to think that what they teach is scientific.”
No, your intimidated by SCIENCE itself not “evolution”. What they teach IS science that is supported by 150 years of testing and evidence. Creation on the other hand is unfalsifiable religious dogma with the trappings of science only. Chris mankey
Whovian?222@msn.com
Remove Question mark in
Email address
November 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
“Now I see evolution for what it is, an interpretation of the facts…not to be confused with the facts.”
Wow, it’s astounding that when faced with the overwhelming evidence of evolution creationists resort to post-modernist relativism.Praise the saviour Michel Foucault! When faced with Multiple Radiometric dating methods that use different material with different half lives but give the same date for the strata they resort to Post modern relativism to dismiss it! But ask them if Jesus rose from the dead and the universe returns to the rock solid objectivity they crave so much! Not very honest if you ask me!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
It is interesting that several of the exhibits at the creation museum seem to support evolution as well: http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2334.html
Please note that the “tree” on the left (under God’s way) includes “lucy” and shows the evolutionary process.
Just interesting is all.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I think what they are saying in that slide is that the remains called “lucy” were just another ape, not a transitionary life form between apes and humans.
Here is just one article on the research of “lucy” that maybe the fossils are of an ape, not human ancestor.
I graduated from college believing evolution was true, but when I studied the evidence further I really was baffled how little evidence there really is. Not only that, the only examples of evolution given to me in school were frauds (peppered moth, and child embreo development).
I would like to clarify, I do believe in micro evolution where there are shifts of DNA within a species causing variation within that species, but I do not believe in non-living goo in a pond turning into living creatures. The amount of DNA required for the simplest of life forms it too great for a chance spark of life. Also the transitional fossils needed to show evolution from one species to another just don’t support to the theory (as Darwin predicted they would).
It seems to me more science digs into things the more they point to a creator…just look at DNA for example. The process of creating DNA is more complicated than many processes for manufacturing products.
Here is a good example of all the things that go into making DNA…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=teV62zrm2P0
This is very surface, but I think the premise of that process coming from nothing is not too realistic.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:06 am
Yikes!!!
Yet another proselytization attempt — what is this…the 3rd in the last month?
Chris Mankey (this sounds suspiciously like “monkey” — no offence — just sayin)
Your arguments fairly overwhelm me, dude.
Um, know where can I exchange my “Christians Aren’t Perfect, Just Forgiven” bumpersticker for a “Darwin Was Right After All” one? I’m so embarrassed.
(Oh BTW, know what that deafening noise is? It’s the sound of the pitter-patter of hundreds, yea thousands, of feet, belonging to scared — as well as red-faced — scientists leaving the sinking ship of Evolution, and scurrying for the safe haven of Intelligent Design)
OOOPS!
-joe
December 1st, 2007 at 11:43 am
My husband has a childhood friend who is a die-hard atheist and confirmed evolutionist. He tries to engage me in arguments about it. But we don’t go very far because he gets upset with my naivete about such things.
I maintain that I know my God. I know who He is, and I know what He can do. He can create a universe in six days. He can!! He can build age into it if He wants to. If He stretched out the heavens and caused red shifts and time warps, then fine.
Even more, if He thought it was important to open His book with His account of how He did it, then I guess I better listen up. And (even more frustrating to my friend), yes, I believe every word. Because I know the power of my God and the efficacy of His word by personal observation and experience.
Besides, “science” is the evolving thing here. It proves itself wrong all the time. If “science” does not agree with the Bible, then we’ll see which one changes over the course of time. I may be dead by then, but if that is the case, then I will know for sure how creation happened. And I bet it will be another opportunity to extrol the greatness of my God.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Well said, anna.
-joe
December 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Science is being proven wrong all the time? Not really but scientific ideas are modified when new information become available. Of course that is why science has a more accurate picture of the world than religion. Religion is simply dogma that doesn’t change with new information about the world. I guess if you don’t understand why ideas that are testable, falsifiable and corrigible or better than idea’s that aren’t what the point of talking to you?
December 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Are better, rather .
December 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“Oh BTW, know what that deafening noise is? It’s the sound of the pitter-patter of hundreds, yea thousands, of feet, belonging to scared — as well as red-faced — scientists leaving the sinking ship of Evolution, and scurrying for the safe haven of Intelligent Design”
Wow, what an utter delusion! It’s interesting to see how out of touch with the truth most born again christians are! I’ve heard that historians are now leaving the sinking ship of the holocaust hypothesis and now are embracing David Irving style “Historical revisionism” . It’s just a true as what you said ! Yep!
December 1st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Chris said:
Chris, I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about God. Religious people say all kinds of things, some true, some not. And a lot of them contradict each other. God’s perspective IS reality. If you want to know what He thinks about a matter, then you have to ask Him. (Not test. Ask.)
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 am
I don’t know very much about science or math for that matter, but, I do believe that Christians do not have to take Genesis 1’s creation week as 7 literal days or even long periods of time to accept the fact of the magnificence of a sole Creator of the universe (instead of many Mesopotamian gods), which is, as I understand it, the main point of the story.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Whoa, that is the first time I have heard someone who is a Bible scholar or who has studied the Bible extensively actually say something like that. I agree…it was just surprising to read. Pleasantly so.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
David:
Why would someone not take it literally? The narrative does not seem ambiguous.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
just thinking says: Whoa, that is the first time I have heard someone who is a Bible scholar or who has studied the Bible extensively actually say something like that. I agree…it was just surprising to read. Pleasantly so.
just thinking: That’s great! If you wouldn’t mind, I feel curious as to how you came to that conclusion or opinion yourself without first hearing it from someone “who has studied the Bible extensively.” Did you read the text without comment or commentary and come to that conclusion on your own? Just curious…
December 6th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
anna asks: Why would someone not take it literally? The narrative does not seem ambiguous.
anna: Very good question! Here are a couple of brief thoughts:
(1) Genesis 2:2-3 says that God “rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” If the account was to be taken literally, then it would seem to me that we should be believing that God was exhausted after he created the universe and had to lay down for a nap in his heavenly recliner. We know, however, that God is a Spirit (John 4:22-24) and therefore never gets tired, so something else needs to be the explanation for the “he rested” comment associated with the Supreme Being.
The most logical explanation seems to be that the writer of Genesis 1-2 wanted to use an argument from creation (cf. how Paul, or one of his disciples using his name, also argues from the created order the role of male headship in one of his letters to Timothy) to try to legitimate the Jewish Sabbath day. The reasoning would go something like this: if God rested on the seventh day when he created the worlds, then, surely all of us Jews need to follow his example and do the same! Since it was this way in the beginning, so shall it need be forever for his people Israel. Therefore, honor the Sabbath day, O people!
(2) Genesis 1-2 teaches that God created the universe in seven days. To take this literally, we would need to interpret it as seven 24 hour periods of time. We know that God is a Spirit (John 4:22-24) and is not limited by time. Therefore, how could we take literally a declaration limiting him to the time-space continuum - as we humans know it - which he is clearly above and beyond? Therefore, we need to look for an explanation of the seven days of creation in another place. I think a good fit is again a justification for the Jewish Sabbath which is at the end of a seven day period of human time.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:08 am
David, how do we know that Spirits never get tired?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:13 am
David,
The idea was presented to me in a class I was taking at Mt.Hood CC. Not directly to me, but to the class in lecture.
It was a philosophy class and the instructor was an agnostic who had been raised as a Christian. He was a very thoughtful man and was respectful of the Christian religion, he just didn’t subscribe to its beliefs (any longer). Anyhow, I don’t remember his exact phrasing, but what he said resonated with me and I have thought about it ever since. I don’t necessarily feel settled on it, but it makes the most sense to me.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I’m curious. I’ve heard it said that the literal translation of the first three words of the Torah/Genesis are actually “In a beginning”. Any thoughts on this?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Brian K,
Seems like I have read an english translation that rendered vs. 1:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth. Now the earth was without form and void …
Per eSword, the HNV (Hebrew Name Version) and the WEB (World English Bible) include the “NOW” … if I remember correctly, so does the RSV or perhaps NIV …
That is a reasonable translation in my view - after all, vs. 1 states God “created” the heavens and the earth. Vs. 2 cites the earth as ‘formless and void’ of life … did God create a formless earth, or did it become that way?
Note that God’s spirit is hovering over the face of the waters, so water already existed, and surely there was other mass / elements to work with in that it was ‘formless’ (like a mudball?) …
The word “darkness” in verse 2 is also interesting. The hebrew for it is as follows:
H2822
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek’
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
Note the definition. One has to ask “Did GOD make that?” (misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow?
Keep in mind this scripture:
So it is reasonable to conclude that God did NOT create a formless, void and dark world, but that God originally created a beautiful, light and life filled world, that BECAME void of life, dark, formless.
There’s another clue later on that I saw a few years ago, and that comes at Genesis 1:28 which says:
Notice the word “replenish”? With the other creatures God made, He instructed them to go forth and “fill” the earth. To man He said “replenish”. It is the same hebrew word for replenish and fill, but still raises my curiosity - for you can only REPLENISH that which has existed previously and became DEPLETED.
Personally, I think Genesis tells the story of original creation, cataclysm and re-creation.
You might dig these web pages about what’s called OOPARTS (Out Of Place ARTifactS) …
http://www.s8int.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPArt
http://www.byerly.org/whatifo.htm
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/11/ooparts-and-tubal-cain.html
Not all Christian links, but still interesting about OOPArts.
Could it be that God’s original creation, followed by destruction(s) and recreation(s) account for the earth’s fossil record, carbon dating, etc.?
Sam
December 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Just Thinking, thanks for letting me know!
RP asks: David, how do we know that Spirits never get tired?
RP, I know because my guardian angel told me so. ; )
December 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Brian K said: I’ve heard it said that the literal translation of the first three words of the Torah/Genesis are actually “In a beginning”. Any thoughts on this?
Brian K, I have not heard that. I’m sorry that I can’t be of any help because I do not know Hebrew.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I know it may sound rediculous, but I was asking a serious question. How do we know?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Interesting. Thanks all. If I have some time later I’ll post some info I dug up.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
David, thank you for answering. I’d like to answer:
(1) The narrative doesn’t say that God was tired, just that He rested. He does all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. So He must have had a reason for resting.
(2) Obviously God is beyond the space/time continuum. That is why when people see visions or speak with God, their sense of time often seems to get messed up. However, in Scripture, many times God acknowledges our limited perspective — He understands it and speaks within it. So, it seems the narrative of creation is very specific about it being from earth’s perspective since it says clearly “an evening and a morning” for each day.
just some thoughts…
December 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
anna said: …in Scripture, many times God acknowledges our limited perspective — He understands it and speaks within it.
anna, I love this statement. To me this is called accomodation, i.e., God’s continuing Incarnation, as it were, to humanity - speaking in the terms that they can comprehend - even if “limited” and even perceived at a later time as “fallible.”
RP: sorry! i thought that you were kidding…..since angels were created beings, one could read articles on Angels in scholarly Bible dictionaries to see if something is said of their proneness to tiredness; but I will speak of God alone since that was my point to begin with…. it is difficult for me to see a Supreme Being, who is uncreated, ever experiencing physical tiredness; God is not a human being (except when in the form of the Incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth when he felt it); I do not see an All-powerful God as needing a nap; I dare say that biblical theology would find the origin of tiredness in the Fall: Adam was doomed to work (and get tired!?) “by the sweat of his brow…” …Finally, the Word says, “the Lord does not slumber; neither does he sleep…”
December 10th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
eh, I think Jacob wore out God to the point that he used his super powers to slow Jacob’s roll. But even then Jacob wouldn’t give. The lesson I learned as a child was:
a) God likes to wrestle.
b)God seems to get tired fairly often.
c)God doesn’t like losing and will cheat to win.
;-)
December 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Thanks, David.
So do spirits get tired? Well, God doesn’t. And I can’t think of any place in scripture where it says that angels do. We don’t really want to talk to demons to find out if they do. But human spirits get tired. At least, mine does.