Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.
For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
I voted along with you, Rick.
I voted false, but I agree that this is an issue where reasonable believers in Christ can disagree.
I think that the evidence demonstrates that the universe (and the earth) are billions of years old, and that some of the events mentioned in Genesis 1 occurred eons apart from each other.
There are a number of ways to try and reconcile this with a more literal reading of Genesis. But, I think it is more appropriate to realize that Genesis was not written as a scientific textbook. Instead, it was written to convey truths about God and his creation to an ancient people, who had an entirely different worldview than us.
Instead of teaching precisely how long creation took, the more important points are:
1. There is only one God, who has always existed.
2. This God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
3. This God created everything, and has no competitor (opposing a dualistic cosmology and theology).
4. This God actually likes human beings, and supplies their needs.
5. This God is a strict moralist.
There are undoubtedly a number of other points that could be extracted . . . these are just a few. All of these ideas would be astounding to an ancient Middle Eastern mindset.
As Royce Dickinson has said, Genesis may be looked upon as an evangelistic tract, teaching ancient peoples about the true God. I don't think the author(s) intended most of the scientific meanings that we have tried to extract from the text.
Mike
Mike,
If the creation days are not to be taken literally then why should we take your "more important points" literally? Who is to say what parts of Genesis are literal and which ones are not?
The fact is that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is that it is an historical account. There can be no doubt that the original readers understood this to mean literal 24 hour days.
Barry
Barry
I'm worried. I agree with you!:;):
Allan
The evidence relies upon mathematical assumptions and models which cannot be verified to be 100% accurate.
Because the rate of exponential decay of Carbon 14 follows a certain pattern for awhile, does not mean that all elements follow this particular model. Also, Carbon 14 is only valid in situations less than 50,000 years. A whole host of other dating methods are being used for things assumed to be of different ages.
It is very possible that current dating methods are not correct.
Jerry,
In addition, since the accepted dating methods themselves often disagree with each other, and have widely varying results, it is really hard to trust them. In other words, if one method says X and another says Y, which one do you trust?
Also, it really doesn't matter if you have an accurate dating method that says the earth is a kazillion years old. The earth was created as an already mature planet. It isn't as if Adam and Eve started off as infants, with seedlings instead of full-grown trees, etc... The earth was created with age.
IHS,
Barry
Allan,
I imagine we agree on many things other than politics :p
Barry
Didn't we just do this survey a few months ago?
I voted false, but I wonder what the Orthodox Church's position is? :cool:
For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?
Barry
For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?
Barry
I agree with you Barry, how do you reconcile a morning and evening if they were not 24 hours days. Plus it is my understanding that the original word used for "day" ALWAYS means 24 hour time period in the rest of scripture, why would that be different in Genesis 1.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
p.s. the poll I did a couple of months ago asked whether or not the earth was 10,000 years old.
Barry wrote:
For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?
Barry
I do with it the same as I do with, say, Psalm 18:
6 In my distress I called to the LORD ;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears.
7 The earth trembled and quaked,
and the foundations of the mountains shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
8 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-
the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
13 The LORD thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.
14 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemies ,
great bolts of lightning and routed them.
15 The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at your rebuke, O LORD ,
at the blast of breath from your nostrils.
16 He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
he drew me out of deep waters.
17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the LORD was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.
The language is figurative.
And anyway, God didn't create the sun until day four (Gen. 1:14-19), and so how could there have been a conventional sunrise and sunset?
For those that think it is false, do you believe that God has the power to create everything in 6 24 hour days?
For those that think it is false, do you believe that God has the power to create everything in 6 24 hour days?
Absolutely.
As long as everyone is agreed on that point.
Well, and here's the thing too. There are two separate creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. If you look at them carefully, you see that in the first one, the animals are created first, then people. In the second one, Adam is created first, then animals, then Eve.
So here's the question: Why does it matter?
The fundamental point behind Biblical creationism is the idea of the Bible being literal. If we grant that Biblical creationism might not have happened, then it opens the door to many other possibilities about Scripture, most of which we (evangelicals) feel like threaten orthodoxy.
Or we could grant that there is language in Scripture that is as figurative as the language in Revelation. And truly, if we grant that John (or whoever) couldn't find the words to describe the end of the world, why would we think it's any easier for Moses (or whoever) to describe the beginning?
What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.
The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.
Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.
IHS,
Barry
I think you make some good points, Barry. And I agree that many times, faith fills in the gaps where science fail us. Which in the case of young earth vs. old earth, I don't think it has, but I also don't think it matters a lot in the overall scope of life.
By that same logic that you use though, you could make the same claims about Revelation and the twelve gates and mile high walls.
Phil,
Actually, that wouldn't work. When studying scripture we must understand the type of literature we are studying. Genesis is presented to us as a historical account, while Revelation is presented to us as an Apocalypse. Two different types of literature demand two different types of interpretation/understanding. It is just like Tidbit posting the reference in Psalms (nothing personal Tidbit). It is apples and oranges.
IHS,
Barry
So how do you deal with the two different orders for creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2?
Barry wrote:
What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.
In my opinion (and I have never studied Hebrew), the word "yom" means something other than a 24 hour day in Genesis chapter 1. Gen. 1
is the exception. And so you (or whomever) can't say that "yom"
never means anything other than a 24 hour day. Am I making myself clear? (sincerely)
Likewise, with the resurrection, you could say that
no one has ever been resurrected from the dead, and therefore, Jesus was not resurrected from the dead. But as you and I know, Jesus was the exception to the general rule.
I guess my complaint is that you are using Deductive Reasoning to prove literal creationism. (i.e., All dogs have four legs, Rover is a dog, so therefore Rover has four legs.) It doesn't always work that way.
Phil,
I'll point you to an online article that will do a better job of answering your question than I could:
CLICK HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp)
Barry
Tidbit,
My question remains. What linguistic evidence do you have to offer that allows us to twist the clear meaning of Genesis? You can't just say, "I just think it should be that way."
Your analogy on the resurrection doesn't make any sense. The Bible clearly says that Jesus rose from the dead, and He did. It also clearly says that God created in six literal days and He did.
Without any knowledge of Hebrew it is a bit dangerous for you to start twisting around the language. I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?
I'm still trying to understand why you have a problem with it being a literal 24 hours? Is it because you've embraced evolutionary theory?
IHS,
Barry
[!--EDIT|Barry|1109352343--]
I'm going to reorganize my post above in the goal of making my point more clearly. (Not that I hope to persuade Barry.)
Barry wrote:
What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.
I guess my complaint is that you are using Deductive Reasoning to prove literal creationism. (i.e., All dogs have four legs, Rover is a dog, so therefore Rover has four legs.) It doesn't always work that way.
Likewise, with the resurrection, a person could say (based upon available evidence) that dead people don't come back to life, and therefore, since Jesus was a person, Jesus was not resurrected from the dead. But as you and I know, Jesus was the exception to the general rule.
In my opinion (and I have never studied Hebrew), the word "yom" means something other than a 24 hour day in Genesis chapter 1. Gen. 1 is the exception. And so you (or whomever) can't say that "yom" never means anything other than a 24 hour day. Am I making myself clear?
Barry wrote:
I'm still trying to understand why you have a problem with it being a literal 24 hours? Is it because you've embraced evolutionary theory?
Yes. You figured it out--I'm a heretic. :O
(And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those nosey kids!)
Tidbit,
Your analogy still doesn't make any sense. My argument is based upon what God has revealed to us, and there is no doubt that He revealed both Creation and Jesus' resurrection to be literal events.
Again, please state some concrete reasons for why you believe the Genesis creation account is not literal 24 hour days. So far you've said that is what you've believed, but haven't given any reasons why.
IHS,
Barry
Yes. You figured it out--I'm a heretic.
Okay, so now at least I know where you're coming from. So would it be fair to say that you interpret Genesis the way you do based on evolutionary theory, rather than on what Genesis says?
IHS,
Barry
the answer is currently unknowable. unlike barry, i don't think the account reads as history, but it is indeed phrased within an historical timeline.
dj
Well David,
If it doesn't read as literal history, were all the Jewish scholars down through the centuries incorrect when they read it as such? If so, on what linguistic basis would you make that charge?
If you are correct, what parts of Genesis are meant to be taken literally and which parts aren't? And by what accepted standard do you make that distinction?
We also have an additional problem, in that Jesus stated a literal understanding of the creation account:
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'- Mark 10:6 (NIV)
Notice, this was not "at some point" in creation, but at the "beginning" of creation. That pretty much does away with the long days or gap theory. Wouldn't you agree? Or was Jesus wrong too?
IHS,
Barry
Barry, do you view your belief in the literalness of Biblical creation to be a salvation issue?
Phil,
No I don't. But I do believe it is the "slippery slope" that leads people to begin denying the Bible as a whole. Once you remove the foundation, the whole building starts to crumble. If the first part of the Bible is in error, what happens to the rest of it?
IHS,
Barry
As I stated earlier, I do believe that the heavens and the earth, and everything in them was created by God in 6 actual, 24 hour days.
I will say this though, as a point to ponder... the Bible uses language which was taken for many, many years to indicate that the sun revolved around the earth. It speaks of then sun "rising" and "going down". Of course, I know the answer to this, as do most people, but how many understood this to mean that the solar system was geo-centric for quite some time?
Also, the Bible uses language which was taken by many, for years upon years to mean that the earth was flat. It speaks of the "four corners of the earth". Again, I know the answer to this, as do most people, but how many understood this to mean that the earth was flat?
Science began to open our understanding on these things, and many in the church considered such thoughts as heresy. Might it be possible that we could be doing the same thing?... Just something that I hope will spur on additional discussion.
[!--EDIT|James Rondon|1109358619--]
James,
I would have to differ with you. Rather than science clearing up our understanding of the Bible, the Bible has always been way ahead of our scientific understanding. Consider the following that was taught in the Bible, which science had to catch up with later:
• Spherical shape of the earth.
- (Isa 40:22) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
• Earth is suspended in nothing
- (Job 26:7) He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
• Stars are innumerable
- (Gen 15:5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
• The Hydrologic Cycle.
- (Job 26:8) He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
- (Job 36:27-28) "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; {28} the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
- (Eccl 1:6-7) The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. {7} All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
• Concept of Entropy
- (Psa 102:25-26) In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. {26} They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.
• Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness (Lev. 12-14)
Most of the things you've pointed to were things that science taught in contradiction to the Bible. It was not necessarily held by Bible believers, but often by non-believers.
IHS,
Barry
Barry, of course I agree with those things that you posted, but the fact of the matter is that many "Bible believers" thought otherwise over the centuries. Look back into the writings of believers throughout the centuries, and see that they believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it.
In light of your assertion regarding what every Jewish scholar believed about the literal 24 hour periods of Genesis 1, I think that this is pertinent, and should be at least considered.
In light of your assertion regarding what every Jewish scholar believed about the literal 24 hour periods of Genesis 1, I think that this is pertinent, and should be at least considered.
Of course it should. But we should also consider that they had no other context in which to operate.
Barry, to answer your point, I agree that for some it can lead to denial of Scripture.
It hasn't for me though. Because I wouldn't classify it as error. I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.
James,
You're missing my point. Hebrew scholars, both ancient and modern, agree that the Genesis text means literal 24 hour days. There are those who deny that creation literally took place in 24 hour segments, but they all agree that that is what the Bible teaches!
Here is the main issue I have. Those from the Theistic Evolutionist framework want to rewrite the Bible to fit their scientific theory. But they are not being honest. You cannot fit evolutionary theory into Genesis. I would have a lot more respect for them if they just flat out denied the Genesis record, as it is linguistically dishonest for them to make Genesis say something that it does not say.
IHS,
Barry
I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.
Okay, but
why would you do that? What hermeneutical and/or linguistic standard allows you to make that assumption? My point is that you have to rewrite our understanding of the Hebrew language to do what you are trying to do. If you are going to do that, you can't do it just because you think it is a neat idea. You have to offer some legitimate proof for it.
Do you see the problem here? I could do the same thing with the resurrection of Christ. I could say: "Science has proven that it is impossible to rise from the dead. And since the Bible says Jesus did rise from the dead, it must be using metaphorical language." Why would that not be justified, but it would be okay to do it with the Genesis record, which clearly presents itself as a historical account?
IHS,
Barry
Ok, Barry. We obviously believe two different things. I'm willing to let it go at that.
Phil,
I'm not trying to be a horse's rear end, but I would rather you didn't leave it at that. I've clearly stated why I believe what I believe. Why won't you and Tidbit do the same?
IHS,
Barry
I believe that I have as well. I've stated my reasons for believing it's figurative. You disagree with them. Ok. I can live with that.
I also can see that this only serves to divide us. That's why I'm going to walk away from this discussion. No hard feelings on my part.
Phil,
I don't think it is dividing anyone. I'm just trying to have an honest conversation. The problem is, all I've seen from your side is that you "think" it should be interpreted a certain way, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. If there is none, why not simply state that and be done with it?
IHS,
Barry
Some very good discussion,
But I must reiterate that this is NOT a salvation issue. I know there are going to be some things I and everyone else was dead wrong on when we see God face to face. That is why I so richly believe in his grace.
But I do like apologetics a lot and it certainly gets good conversation going, so you might see some more true/false posts from me...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Just because I may disagree with evidence that has been presented does not mean that evidence has not been presented.
Personally, I think this has to do with recognizing that different types of writing have different purposes, and that these purposes determine the way that words are used. To the man who objected to non-24 hour creation days by saying "God knows how to write a book", I would say "Yes, and He knows that writing books often involves using metaphors."
God exists apart from time, but we humans do not, so He speaks to us on our level.
The strongest evidence that these days were not 24-hour has been brought up, the non-existence of the sun in the beginning. I also have found much of the young-earth scientific evidence I have read singularly unconvincing.
To put it another way, I have read both Bert Thompson and John Clayton, and find that Clayton's work had much more of a ring of truth to it.
jerryBrooke said:For those that think it is false, do you believe that God has the power to create everything in 6 24 hour days?
Certainly. God may also have created the universe five minutes ago, completely mature and populated with individuals who have memories that were also created five minutes ago. How would we know?
Except that seems deceitful, which is not consistent with the nature of God, as I understand it.
This is part of the argument I would use for an old universe. To assume that God created it with the false appearance of age also seems deceitful.
Mike
Barry said:The fact is that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is that it is an historical account. There can be no doubt that the original readers understood this to mean literal 24 hour days. (emphasis mine -- Mike)
Don't you think this is a bit strong? I understand that this is controversial and open to debate, but many bright people have doubted that the writer intended a literal 24 hour day.
Mike
Barry said:The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.
Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.
andI think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?
These assertions are incorrect.
Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.
Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.
Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.
Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.
Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that
yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".
Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.
.................................................................................
My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.
I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.
Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am
not a theistic evolutionist.
Mike
Thank you, Mike for saying it in a way which I could not.
You made good points. I personally look at nature and see an Earth and a Universe that appear to be very old. The stars tell us that, if nothing else. Think about it--they say that our Galaxy--the Milky Way--is 120,000 light years in diameter. (Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 5.87 trillion miles in a year.) Earth is about 25,000 light years away from the center, so the farthest star is about 85,000 light years away from us. And that's just the stars in our Galaxy. By some estimations, there may be billions of galaxies in the universe.
Now if God created the universe in a literal six days (which I admit he could do), and the Earth and the Universe and Everything is only about 6,000 years old, then for us to be able to see the stars at the edge of our galaxy, he would have had to create light beams already in motion hurling from the source of the stars toward Earth no more than 6,000 light years away from Earth. While God is certainly capable of doing this, why should he?
Rather than being evidence that God did not create the universe, I believe that scientific observation confirms that there is no way for Life, the Universe and Everything to exist absent God creating it.
(And, BTW, Barry, I am NOT a theistic evolutionist, or any other kind of evolutionist, for that matter.)
Well David,
If it doesn't read as literal history, were all the Jewish scholars down through the centuries incorrect when they read it as such? If so, on what linguistic basis would you make that charge?
If you are correct, what parts of Genesis are meant to be taken literally and which parts aren't? And by what accepted standard do you make that distinction?
We also have an additional problem, in that Jesus stated a literal understanding of the creation account:
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'- Mark 10:6 (NIV)
Notice, this was not "at some point" in creation, but at the "beginning" of creation. That pretty much does away with the long days or gap theory. Wouldn't you agree? Or was Jesus wrong too?
IHS,
Barry
barry:
to explain myself for you & others, in case anyone is really interested;
1) i did not vote in the poll because neither the true nor false responses are knowable. none of us were there, our beliefs can only come from faith.
2) i enjoy a bit of apologetics sometimes. be wary of apologists, though. they're like atomic hand grenades...they do the job of clearing out the 'baddies' but you can't escape the blast zone yourself.
as soon as you disagree with an apologist, it's you who are are wrong. that's why i don't trust the idea a lot, but a little is ok with me...need that grain of salt, you know.
3) 'Well David,
If it doesn't read as literal history, were all the Jewish scholars down through the centuries incorrect when they read it as such? If so, on what linguistic basis would you make that charge?
If you are correct, what parts of Genesis are meant to be taken literally and which parts aren't? And by what accepted standard do you make that distinction?'
...'all'? impossible for you to know.
the part of genesis we're concerned with here is the literary equivalent of a 'theme & variation' form used in music.
a - state the motif
b - begin the development of the motif
by varying it's expression through expansion, diminution, retrogrades, inversions, etc....
gen 1:1 is the motif. then moses or his scribal aides under the Spirit's direction continued developing the one great statement that in the beginning, it was God who created.
the elaborations start with v2.
historical fact can be presented thusly, but that is not the general way to present what you want your readers to view as literal history.
4) 'We also have an additional problem, in that Jesus stated a literal understanding of the creation account:
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'- Mark 10:6 (NIV)
Notice, this was not "at some point" in creation, but at the "beginning" of creation. That pretty much does away with the long days or gap theory. Wouldn't you agree? Or was Jesus wrong too?'
...?? where's the problem? Jesus obviously did not mean at the very beginning...that's when light was created!
dj
I'll go out on a limb and say that it beats the snot out of me.
It seems that if it really took billions of years and Moses, or whoever, had God tell him to write it all out he would have developed such a nervous twitch he couldn't write a thing. It could be God's mercy by just giving him the abridged version.
Maybe God could have had him write "First there was nothing. It exploded. Some of it got damp and some organisms slithered out and turned into people".
As for dating of old stuff, I don't understand that, either. I don't get the idea of a brand spanking new rock.
When I was a little kid, I thought the neatest thing in the world was dinosaurs. I read all the little kid books about dionosaurs, and as I got older I read some more advanced books about them.
Then I discovered sports and cars and girls (in about that order) and quit thinking about dinosaurs until I took historical geology in college, and learned that there were new theories about how dinosaurs acted and looked, and that what I learned as a little kid was incorrect. Then I forgot about dinosaurs again until I had my own little kid. He got excited about dinosaurs and we read all the new little kid books about dinosuars, and guess what - they said different things than what I had learned in college. I got curious and did some more advanced reading and found out that the paleontologists now thought most of what we believed about dinosaurs when I was a kid was now wrong.
Not long ago I picked up a science magazine that had an article with the latest dope on dinosaurs, and once again, they think that what they thought just a few years ago was wrong.
That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry. But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong, especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.
All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing, as I currently do, that it all happened in six days. I just can't see any reason to believe anything else. I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.
I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.
Okay, but why would you do that? What hermeneutical and/or linguistic standard allows you to make that assumption? My point is that you have to rewrite our understanding of the Hebrew language to do what you are trying to do. If you are going to do that, you can't do it just because you think it is a neat idea. You have to offer some legitimate proof for it.
Do you see the problem here? I could do the same thing with the resurrection of Christ. I could say: "Science has proven that it is impossible to rise from the dead. And since the Bible says Jesus did rise from the dead, it must be using metaphorical language." Why would that not be justified, but it would be okay to do it with the Genesis record, which clearly presents itself as a historical account?
IHS,
Barry
This is exactly the presupposition used by the Jesus Seminar Fellows and other liberal scholars who deny that the resurrection occurred. They argue from a presupposition: Since science has proved that people cannot rise from the dead, its impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. Or, since modern man no longer believes that miracles can happen, the miracles in the Bible, especially the resurrection, couldn't have happened.
Barry makes some excellent points from a lingustic/textual standpoint. We have to read and interpret scripture as it was intended by its authors, who were all Jews, former Jews, or Greeks who understood the Jewish theological framework. We can't read twentieth century ideas into an ancient Jewish text like Genesis-or any other biblical or other ancient texts. We wouldn't read a novel like Johnathon Swift's
Gulliver's Travels through modern, twenty-first century political presuppositions, we have to read it through eighteenth century political presuppositions. Same with the Bible.
I'm not sure where I fall in regard to the age of the earth and whether creation was in six twenty-four hour days. But I do know that whatever we decide must be faithful to the original intentions of the writer(s) of Genesis.
Pax vobiscum.[/color]
All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing, as I currently do, that it all happened in six days. I just can't see any reason to believe anything else. I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.
BOG,
just a curiosity question if I may boldly ask: You say that at one time you believed the Genesis account was figurative or a myth, how did you feel about the rest of the Bible at the time?
my humble 2 cents
Rick
This is a follow up to my earlier post.
I'm a real ignoramus when it comes to posting links and such, but if you'll go over to the Yahoo news site, you'll find a story about some astronoical discovery that causes astronomers to now say the universe "evolved" much longer ago than they had previously thought. It has something to do with a cluster of galaxies being in a place where, according to theory, they shouldn't have been. They're too far away to be explained under the current thinking of how the universe "evolved."
Just more proof that we shouldn't get too worked up about what scientists think about these things - because whatever the experts think about any subject today, in a few years they'll think something different.
Rick
I suppose in those days I believe the Bible was "based on" fact but inaccurate about a lot of things.
Today, I'm more inclined to believe the Bible on its own terms, or perhaps less inclined to believe the questioners.
Either way, it's easier for me to accept that what the Bible says is accurate.
That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry. But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong, especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.
All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing, as I currently do, that it all happened in six days. I just can't see any reason to believe anything else. I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.
Why should we accept their version, anyway? Afterall, they weren't there. Instead of listening to them, why don't we just listen to the One who was there?...
That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry. But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong, especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.
All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing, as I currently do, that it all happened in six days. I just can't see any reason to believe anything else. I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.
Why should we accept their version, anyway? Afterall, they weren't there. Instead of listening to them, why don't we just listen to the One who was there?...
By thinking that the universe might be more than 6000 years old, I'm not necessarily listening to the scientists over God. I'm not calling God a liar. Rather, I am looking at the universe he created, which attests that it
was created by a higher power (intelligent design, if you will).
Psalm 8:3-4
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
BTW, in my mind, man probably
was created about 6000 years ago, as per Genesis; but the earth and the universe are much older. That's my theory
du jour, and I'm sticking with it.
Peace[/color]
I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.
I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.
johntwayne,
Why would this be a surprise? I voted 6 literal days too. You almost sound like you are apologizing for voting 6 literal days...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.
johntwayne,
Why would this be a surprise? I voted 6 literal days too. You almost sound like you are apologizing for voting 6 literal days...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Not at all! I happen to believe in something called "creation evangelism" (imitating Paul's approach in Acts 17). I believe most kids today are so indoctrinated with evolution that the key to getting them to turn to God is to destroy their faith in Darwin and establish it in the one, true Creator of the universe.
Dwarnism, relativism, humanism are the banes of the modern world.[/color]
I skipped to the end so forgive me if this is worn out territory. If I have to choose between 6 literal 24 hour periods and no God, then I go with the literal 6 24 hours periods. If I simply read what Genesis 1 and 2 say about what happened only on the one day, day 6. Naming animals, looking for a mate in a male/female created animal world, the deep sleep at the end of all that.... Literal?? No way. Same with Noah's ark. If we say the world is that young while considering the number of species alive today.... must have been frozen embryos (but then why all the food too?) because the ark wasn't big enough. Do we bow to Carbon 14 et al as our saviour? NO! Do we chunk our brains out the window knowing what we actually do know about science? The early genesis stories fall apart when forcing the literalness. To stand and say I have more faith than you because I believe they were 24 hour periods only suggests that you have not seriously considered the evidence. The interpretation of the evidence is not the same as the observation of evidence. One can not force a baby earth at the same time explain the diversity of species USING genesis 1 and 2 as the PROOF text for all the answers and explanations. The earth may very well be only a couple of thousand of years old but genesis 1 and 2 do not explain the science. We know science has value as we are using science at this very moment to communicate on the web! Those who might therefore suggest that satan was involved in the "aging" evidence suggests that satan can create too?
Regardless of which you voted for, don't trust carbon-14. I know too many archeologists and scientists to (because when we've talked about it, none of them trusted it, either).
I am cursed with a brain who thinks too much. I happen to work in a zoo and believe me, a christian in the zoo world are either endangered or at risk of extinction! I picture all the animals in the world waiting in the ark for over a year (some animal' life spans are less than a year by the way), separated by the clean and unclean (meat eating, for humans any way, was not OK'd until after the flood. All these animals are then turned loose on Mount Ararat and the earth is then replinished, all the continents, all the isolated islands, all the strictly tropical and the strictly frozen polar animals (not sure about the plants) from animals that can produce their own kind. I am in no way suggesting that evolution is the answer, but rather, by the grace of God I have been cursed with questions in a profession that does not fit genesis literally. However, the truth of a created world, whatever the details, points to my God in ways that words could never quite explain. The vast majority of my world could not care less about fighting over points of theology. They can't even accept the 'theo' yet! This is why the grace centered magazine is so important to me. you all believe and allow thinking minds to think! THANK YOU ALL!!! Mike
I am cursed with a brain who thinks too much.
You, too?
I recently heard a new theory on the flood (new to me, anyway)--localized flood. The theory goes that it was not a worldwide flood, but only particular to the middle east. If this were true, it would explain alot about all the different species of animals distributed around the world.
Please don't misunderstand me--a localized flood is not a theory I subscribe to, but it is interesting.
[It is also interesting the lengths we will go to fit our theological beliefs into a scientific and rational model.][/color]
The guy who found the Titanic subscribes to that theory (can't remember his name). He was looking for proof in one documentary I saw a few years ago.
Some geologists and archeologists have found evidence for an enormous flood in the region of the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age. The Black Sea was an isolated inland lake and much smaller then, with settlements or villages along the shore. When the glaciers receded, the Mediterranean Sea flowed through the Straits of Marmara and the Dardanelles, massively enlarging the previous fresh water lake, and rapidly inundating the towns along the lakeshore.
This is touted by some to be the origin of the flood story.
More info at this link:
National Geographic Black Sea flood story (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html)
Mike
Barry and others who subscirbe to the 6 literal day theory:
Do you also believe in a young earth or do you believe the two issues are unrelated?
If you believe in a young earth, how do you account for the appearance of age?
Barry and others who subscirbe to the 6 literal day theory:
Do you also believe in a young earth or do you believe the two issues are unrelated?
If you believe in a young earth, how do you account for the appearance of age?
The earth, just like Adam and Eve, was created as a completely mature planet. It would have the appearance of age regardless of how old it literally was. Adam and Eve were eating from fully mature fruit trees, not seedlings.
IHS,
Barry[/color]
I think the creation story is a test to reveal which people are truly loving to their fellow man and which are more concerned with being right than getting along. I've never, even once, witnessed an indepth discussion of Creation without very clear lines being drawn between those two classes of people.
I think the creation story is a test to reveal which people are truly loving to their fellow man and which are more concerned with being right than getting along.
Are you serious? You really think that is why God revealed His marvelous work of creation to us? How sad...
IHS,
Barry[/color]
(not sure about the plants)
This comment got me thinking. The flood started on the second month of Noah's 600th year. In 8:5, we find the tenth month when the mountain tops were visible again. But Noah released the raven and the dove at the end of the forty days. The dove came back and was released again in seven days, after which it returned with an olive leaf. How did it get an olive leaf sometime from the first to the middle of the fourth month when the mountains weren't even visible until the tenth?[/color]
.... because the whole earth wasn't covered with water!
(Pardon me while I dodge incoming fire) :)
Mike
I'll answer my own question. If you take the account to be cumulative, then the 150 days which would begin at the end of the flood (near the end of the third month) would end at the end of the eighth month. Another forty days (8:6) would then take you into the tenth month, the first day of which was the first day that mountains were visible. If an olive tree had been able to survive being underwater for seven and a half months, then it would have been available for a dove to pluck one of its leaves.
See? You dig hard enough and the truth will surface.
Now the only question is how in the world that olive tree survived the flood.
You know, the interesting thing about the flood is that almost all mythologies of the world have a flood story. The Greeks had Decaulion and Pyrrha (remarkably similar to Noah) and I know that some Native American tribes tell the story of the Earth being born from water.
Just an interesting sidebar.
I'm too lazy to check on it, but I remember that back at Lipscomb Dr. Goree told us (his World Religions class) that in the ancient Chinese picture-language (it's late and I can't come up with the right words for anything), the symbol for "salvation" was eight people in a boat.
Just sayin'.
(off topic, I hope no one here minds that last phrase. On another board I post on occasionally, people are getting torn apart for using it. I'm not sure why.)
I was told that by a Chinese Christian from NYC, too.
6 days
Barry and others who subscirbe to the 6 literal day theory:
Do you also believe in a young earth or do you believe the two issues are unrelated?
If you believe in a young earth, how do you account for the appearance of age?
The earth, just like Adam and Eve, was created as a completely mature planet. It would have the appearance of age regardless of how old it literally was. Adam and Eve were eating from fully mature fruit trees, not seedlings.
IHS,
Barry
Sorry for the delay, I missed your response for a few days. I think you answered the second question I asked without answering the first. Do you also believe in a young earth? I asked, because I do not want to be discussing issues that are not really involved.
Assuming that you do, I think your "mature earth" comment only answers part of the question. Certainly mature plants and animal give the appearance of age, for animals, maybe a few decades, for the oldest plants we know of perhaps a few centuries. My question deals more with geological and cosmological age. My ultimate question is why God would create artificial appearances of great age?[/color]
Maybe it is just beyond human understanding.
I think I will save this question til when I see Him face to face.
On second thought, maybe I won't even care to know then, or we may even understand it all naturally at that time too.
Sorry no major cerebral input here. ???
Memmy :)
My question deals more with geological and cosmological age. My ultimate question is why God would create artificial appearances of great age?
Years ago I had this discussion with a guy who is still, to this day, the most unbalanced individual I have ever encountered in Churches of Christ (though I think he no longer attends anywhere.) This guy was widely thought to be a great Bible student, taught Bible classes and did a lot of fill-in preaching at various congregations when they were between preachers.
He was convinced that God planted fake dinosaur bones as a snare for unbelievers. They would see the dinosaur bones, doubt the Bible and become atheists and go to hell.
I told my wife that he was crazy and I didn't want to spend much time around him. Subsequent events in this guy's life showed that I was correct.
That's the goofiest theory I've ever heard! :p
He was as serious as a heart attack about it.
He was as serious as a heart attack about it.
BOG, I agree with you about this theory.
I am curious however, if there are others here who actually believe some version of this theory as an explanation for the appearance of the age in the earth and the universe.
Personally, if God is going to make his creation a part of his revelation to man [as he says in Romans 1:20, several Psalms, and other places] then it does not make sense that he would intentionally plant false/misleading information.[/color]
Dennis,
I agree. God is not deceitful. Jesus said, "I am the truth."
That makes me suspect that if the creation appears to be very old, then it is very old.
Mike
I still think we get too caught up in this whole TIME thing. We are so used to living a sequential life, having things happen in order--first this, then this, then this. God exists outside of time. He invented time, after all, didn't he? If he didn't then who did?
Did you ever see the Star Trek episode where they hear this buzzing all around this ship, and weird things start to happen. [And of course, the guy in the red shirt gets killed.]
Then they ask the computer how many people are on board, and they find out that they have an intruder, and its actually this guy who is going so fast that they can't even see him--like he is at a different speed or something. And then they fix the problem, and put the guy on a planet or something, but they put Scotty or Spock in the fast mode so that they can repair the ship faster. And then Bones says something funny about Spock at the end.
Did you see that one? Maybe its kind of like that. Well, it could be. :whistle: :darthvader:
:noworry: never, never wear a red shirt if you work for the Federation and are the odd man/woman out...that's just asking for trouble.
Aha! Here it is:
Wink of an Eye (http://trekguide.com/padd/tos68.htm)
The apparent age theory doesn't explain the Gen. 2 account which refers to a point before trees and plants had begun to grow. Also, the notion that dinosaurs all died in the flood doesn't jive with the passages that have Noah taking aboard "every animal" both clean and unclean. Some have defended the theory by mentioning the impracticality of having huge meat-eating animals on board. But if you can have alligators, lions, jaguars, anacondas, and sheep all living together, then a back room for one pair of velociraptors shouldn't be a problem.
I am curious however, if there are others here who actually believe some version of this theory as an explanation for the appearance of the age in the earth and the universe.
One reason that the apparent age of the Earth doesn't trouble me is that by guessing the apparent age, we are assuming that all physical/geological/natural processes have occured at a relatively constant rate throughout time.
That's a reasonable assumption from one point of view - in the absence of any reliable information, it's normal to assume that the past was like the present, and that the future will be also. But it is just an assumption - not fact. For that reason, I don't find the apparent age of the Earth to be irreconcilable with Genesis.
By the way, here are some examples of where natural processes occured much more rapidly than one would normally expect:
1. The volcano Surtsey to the south of Iceland - it appeared out of the sea in just a few weeks or months;
2. Mount St. Helens in Oregon lost several hundred feet of its height in about a minute's time. Normal erosion would have required hundreds of thousands of years to do that.
So to me, it's certainly not inconceivable that some of these things didn't take as long to happen as our current knowledge tells us they would.
A former prof. at SUNY is a friend of mine, he makes the same points. This is his area of expertise, and he doesn't trust the current science of aging the earth at all. (I don't know how he'd vote on this)
:noworry: never, never wear a red shirt if you work for the Federation and are the odd man/woman out...that's just asking for trouble.
a little off subject, but that is pretty funny. Of course Picard and Riker wore red in The Next Generation and they never got aced...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Yeah, but they had contracts. :D
God created it all in six days, then enjoyed it all with mankind on the seventh day. I think it's great that the first full day for Adam and Eve was just spent resting with God and enjoying everything that had been created with them in mind. I can't wait until I enter the rest I was created for. I rest a little now - but oh what rest awaits me.
bump
(just trying to keep all discussion on the Apologetics & Faith board from being lost)
not that the new posts that have been cropping don't have validity, but there seems to be no desire there for actual discussion.
I want to apologize for bumping up all of these topics. It was presumptious of me, and I shouldn't have done it.
Sorry.
Why not? You have as much right to bump a tpic as anyone...
:)
:amen:
This subject happens to be near the center of my interest...
I am a student of science, and have spent a lot of time in the last year studying creationism vs. evolution etc...
I'd like to think that I know a little about it, but I am happy to just keep learning.
Anywho, I saw a post a page back or so re: the supposed discrepancy between what the Bible says and what the 'evidence' shows.
1. I believe that the 'evidence' doesn't 'prove' anything, but depending upon interpretation, it could support several theories.
2. I believe that the 'evidence' certainly works with the Genesis account. It's really more a matter of faith.
On this note, I'd like to include a link from one of my favorite apologetic websites answersingenesis.org
I'm sure some of you have visited, if not I highly recommend it.
But this parable of the candle story will be sure to get your minds going. parable of the candle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp)
Welcome back, Marzipan.
Why not? You have as much right to bump a tpic as anyone...
:)
:amen:
This subject happens to be near the center of my interest...
I am a student of science, and have spent a lot of time in the last year studying creationism vs. evolution etc...
I'd like to think that I know a little about it, but I am happy to just keep learning.
Anywho, I saw a post a page back or so re: the supposed discrepancy between what the Bible says and what the 'evidence' shows.
1. I believe that the 'evidence' doesn't 'prove' anything, but depending upon interpretation, it could support several theories.
2. I believe that the 'evidence' certainly works with the Genesis account. It's really more a matter of faith.
On this note, I'd like to include a link from one of my favorite apologetic websites answersingenesis.org
I'm sure some of you have visited, if not I highly recommend it.
But this parable of the candle story will be sure to get your minds going. parable of the candle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp)
Marzipan
I agree it does come down to faith, and we should be careful not to say anyone is less faithful because they believe it did not happen in six 24 hour days. Good Point.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
I believe in six literal days... and I don't want to believe in a God who couldn't do otherwise, or at least perform this grand experiment outside of my comprehension.
I believe in six literal days... and I don't want to believe in a God who couldn't do otherwise, or at least perform this grand experiment outside of my comprehension.
I don't think it has anything to do with whether he
could do it that way, only about whether he
did. And to me, the timing of the creation of the sun and moon indicate that these weren't 24-hour periods.
In other words, I'm basing my opinion that this is meant as figurative language on Biblical evidence. :angel:
I voted true, not because GOD couldn't have done it any other way. But think about it, 1000 years to us is only like a day to HIM. :shrug: Anyway just a thought.
I know this has been brought up before, but I do think it is worth noting... What do you do with "there was a morning and an evening" each day if it wasn't 24 hours???
Something I thought about along those lines: In Barrow, AK (and many other parts above the Arctic Circle) there is about a 2 month period in the winter where the sun never rises, yet there is a morning and an evening each day. In the summer there is a 2 month period where the sun never sets, yet there is a morning and an evening each day.
Take it for what it is worth, just something I thought about along this thread.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Good point Rick
A couple of questions, one literary, the other scientific.
First, while it's true that northern areas have morning and evening without the appearance of the sun, if there were never a sun, would they still be thought of as mornings and evenings?
Second, I'm no scientist, so I could be wrong here, but isn't the speed of the earth's rotation influenced by the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon? If this is so, wouldn't the absence of a sun and a moon influence the length of a day, and make it no longer be 24 hours?
I may be wrong about this one; my science is rusty.
:shrug:
I'm doing some research, and so far have found that the speed of the earth's rotation is influenced by the gravitational pull of the sun, moon (tides are evidence of this), and the other planets, but haven't found out how much yet.
A couple of questions, one literary, the other scientific.
First, while it's true that northern areas have morning and evening without the appearance of the sun, if there were never a sun, would they still be thought of as mornings and evenings?
Second, I'm no scientist, so I could be wrong here, but isn't the speed of the earth's rotation influenced by the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon? If this is so, wouldn't the absence of a sun and a moon influence the length of a day, and make it no longer be 24 hours?
I may be wrong about this one; my science is rusty.
:shrug:
I've actually read several really great books concerning this very subject. ( I am a science nut)
The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2000 times n the Old Testament, and almost always refers a 24-hour period. Especially when a numerical adjective is attached to the word. (like 6 days)
The fact that the sun was not created until the forth day does not make the first three days indefinate periods of time. On the first day we know there was light and darkness, so there was some sort of localized, fixed light source so that the earth would pass through the same day/night cycles that it does now with the sun.
I've read some interesting theological implications of the postponement of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars to the second half of the creation week. How significant for God to tell us that life was flourishing without these light sources in view of the idolatrous use of the sun and moon by so many pagans and other unbelievers!
As far as the sun's gravity affecting the rotations of the earth, and therefore the length of a day...
The earth was created before the sun (according to the Bible) so the effect of the sun's gravity would have no effect until its creation on the fourth day. Although, I don't believe it changed anything about the length of a day because the Hebrew word for day remains the same throughout the chapter, and the morning/evening sequences are still used.
Anyway, I'm more of a biologist than a physicist, geologist, or astronomer...
I've read some interesting theological implications of the postponement of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars to the second half of the creation week. How significant for God to tell us that life was flourishing without these light sources in view of the idolatrous use of the sun and moon by so many pagans and other unbelievers!
that is quite interesting, I would have never made that connection, but there is a lot of validity in that argument. Thanks for sharing.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
I've actually read several really great books concerning this very subject. ( I am a science nut)
The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2000 times n the Old Testament, and almost always refers a 24-hour period. Especially when a numerical adjective is attached to the word. (like 6 days)
The fact that the sun was not created until the forth day does not make the first three days indefinate periods of time. On the first day we know there was light and darkness, so there was some sort of localized, fixed light source so that the earth would pass through the same day/night cycles that it does now with the sun.
I've read some interesting theological implications of the postponement of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars to the second half of the creation week. How significant for God to tell us that life was flourishing without these light sources in view of the idolatrous use of the sun and moon by so many pagans and other unbelievers!
As far as the sun's gravity affecting the rotations of the earth, and therefore the length of a day...
The earth was created before the sun (according to the Bible) so the effect of the sun's gravity would have no effect until its creation on the fourth day. Although, I don't believe it changed anything about the length of a day because the Hebrew word for day remains the same throughout the chapter, and the morning/evening sequences are still used.
Anyway, I'm more of a biologist than a physicist, geologist, or astronomer...[/color][/quote]
Interesting stuff.
Here's the point I was getting at about the speed of the earth's rotation and the length of the days:
As far as the sun's gravity affecting the rotations of the earth, and therefore the length of a day...
The earth was created before the sun (according to the Bible) so the effect of the sun's gravity would have no effect until its creation on the fourth day.
This is my point really; the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day, but the earth would have already been spinning at that time. Assuming God had already put the laws of physics into effect, then wouldn't the sudden appearance of these heavenly bodies have actually slowed down the earth's rotation.
If this is the case, and the earth was created in seven literal days, would this make the first three days actually
less than 24 hours? I'd have to check the Hebrew word, but I wonder, does the word refer to a 24-hour period on its own, or does it do so because that's how long our day is? Would we use the same word for a day on Mars, which is a different length? (btw, this is a real problem for scientists working with the Mars Rover, who have come up with their own word--
sol, iirc, for a Martian day.)
Sorry. My mind's going several directions at once here. Honestly, I tend to believe that much of the time structure in the first chapter of Genesis isn't a literal, human-centered, time structure anyway, but I find all of this interesting.[/color]
This is my point really; the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day, but the earth would have already been spinning at that time. Assuming God had already put the laws of physics into effect, then wouldn't the sudden appearance of these heavenly bodies have actually slowed down the earth's rotation.
If this is the case, and the earth was created in seven literal days, would this make the first three days actually less than 24 hours? I'd have to check the Hebrew word, but I wonder, does the word refer to a 24-hour period on its own, or does it do so because that's how long our day is? Would we use the same word for a day on Mars, which is a different length? (btw, this is a real problem for scientists working with the Mars Rover, who have come up with their own word--sol, iirc, for a Martian day.)
Sorry. My mind's going several directions at once here. Honestly, I tend to believe that much of the time structure in the first chapter of Genesis isn't a literal, human-centered, time structure anyway, but I find all of this interesting.
It makes sense as we think about it, to assume that the sudden appearance of the sun and moon would slow down the rotation of the earth, according to the laws of physics and such. But, since the Hebrew word used for day doesn't change anywhere in the creation account, I think it's safe to assume that all of the days were of the same length. Mostly because I know that God is the creator, so I'm sure He is capable of seamless adjustments as well as spontaneous creation.
The word for day meant one day/night cycle, or 24 hours. It was of course a human word for what we experience on this planet as "a day". But God used it in His revelation to us of His creation for a reason. Speculative reasons could include:
Demonstrating to us how powerful He is to create this universe in 6 days.
Laying out a pattern for the Jewish work week, which was 6 days long, and the seventh day a sabbath for rest. (Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
**The same word is used for day in all of those verses. If the days were not literal during creation, then why are they literal within the same verse speaking about the commandment?
(not trying to be argumentative, by the way, just trying to keep up the lively discussion.)[/color]
I guess I don't really see that the number of hours is the most important thing about the definition of a day. In other words, just because what the Jewish people described as a day contained 24 hours doesn't necessarily (it may or may not) mean that a day must contain 24 hours. The Jewish day also started at sunset, I believe, and lasted until the next sunset. Yet we can see that this is not a requirement for our understanding of what a day is. :D As a matter of fact, the Genesis account has morning preceding evening.
btw, mixing the two subjects, I have no problem with using something that may not be literal in human terms to teach a truth that is literal. My ideas on this have more to do with an idea that the writing is meant to convey what happened--God created the heavens--than to give a scientifically precise account of what happened. The presence of days before the creation of the sun and moon, I think, back up the idea that Genesis 1 wasn't intended to be a scientific account.
If this is the case, then whether the word is used with a number elsewhere becomes less important. The term itself isn't so important so much as the type of writing that contains the term.
btw, I've also read that the word "yom" is used in Genesis 2:4 to sum up the entire creation period. Is this true? If so, what does the use of the word in this way in the same context indicate?
Whether morning precedes day, or sunset to sunset, or midnight to midnight... etc... We are still talking about a full cycle. And a full cycle takes 24 hours. And the Hebrew word for that is yom. And it is used repetitively throughout the old testament and the creation account to describe time and events.
A question for you:
If the creation days were more figurative then literal, then where does the "real history" begin in the Bible?
Did Adam and Eve sin in the garden, or was there always the curse of death?
Did all humans come from Adam and Eve, or were there some monkeys and billions of years involved?
Did Noah build an ark, or was that also a kind of educational myth?
You start treading thin ice at that point, in my opinion.
If God created the universe in some other way, say, via the big band and evolution, he could have said so.
Read this "version" of Genesis: (borrowed from AiG)
'When God began to create the heavens and the earth, he expanded a small grain of dust and said, "Let there be light.
btw, I've also read that the word "yom" is used in Genesis 2:4 to sum up the entire creation period. Is this true? If so, what does the use of the word in this way in the same context indicate?
The word yom is used in Genesis 2:4, and here's how:
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. Notice that on the first day God made the heavens and the earth. No plants, no people..
If you read on into verse 5 you see that it is merely describing the first day of creation again.
I'm not saying any of it didn't happen; I'm only saying that time periods, before man came on the scene, don't necessarily mean the same thing they would mean in a human-based, scientific account.
Figurative language is used throughout the Bible, but we tend to equate inspiration with literalness, and sometimes miss them. There are passages in Psalms and Ecclesiastes, for instance, which contain figurative language that people tend to build doctrines around.
The word "yom" is used figuratively many times in the Bible. The first time this is incontrovertable is in Genesis 2.
A belief in figurative language does not equate with a denial of scripture.
Here's an interesting website about the usage of the word "yom", btw: Answers in Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm)
btw, I've also read that the word "yom" is used in Genesis 2:4 to sum up the entire creation period. Is this true? If so, what does the use of the word in this way in the same context indicate?
The word yom is used in Genesis 2:4, and here's how:
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
Notice that on the first day God made the heavens and the earth. No plants, no people..
If you read on into verse 5 you see that it is merely describing the first day of creation again.
NKJV? I've looked, and that's the only version I can find that reads like this (of course the KJV and the NKJV seem to be about the only versions that translate "yom" as "day" here). Here's the whole passage:
4This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Following it through, this history of the day (yom) takes us all the way to the creation of man.
(btw, I have no idea how I got this deep into the discussion. I'm not really hardore on this at all. :shrug: )[/color]
Following it through, this history of the day (yom) takes us all the way to the creation of man.
(btw, I have no idea how I got this deep into the discussion. I'm not really hardore on this at all. )
I know why I like to discuss it, because it is nice to talk about Biblical issues without all the finger pointing of who is saved and who has truth, who is right, etc...
Don't get me wrong I have been hooked into a few of those debates on the Theology thread, but I wish Apologetics were way more active, I like challenging each other without all the silly name calling and stereotypes...
my humble 2 cents
Rick[/color]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp
For those who might like to read a very good article on the "days of Creation" and the Hebrew word yom, go to the above link.
I am a six day creation person my self and believe the Earth is less than 10k years old.
For those who are interested, D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Creationist physicist, about 10 years ago proposed a theory on the origin of the universe that accounts for the ancient universe that is determined by astronomical red shifts, background microwave energy, etc, and also allows for the unique six day creation and an approximate age of the Earth of 6k to 10k years as viewed from our particular position in the universe.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp)
I have studied his theory from my relatively unknowledgable position as a science major in college and I have tried to keep up with his ongoing discussions with scientists on the other side of the fence. His discussions are very impressive and convincing. I personally think, until proved otherwise, his theory is very convincing--much more so than the present "accepted" theory with it's included evolutionary theories.
I know why I like to discuss it, because it is nice to talk about Biblical issues without all the finger pointing of who is saved and who has truth, who is right, etc...
Don't get me wrong I have been hooked into a few of those debates on the Theology thread, but I wish Apologetics were way more active, I like challenging each other without all the silly name calling and stereotypes...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
:amen:
thanks for the link wiley, while I was there I found this interesting little cartoon...
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/0402.gif)
my humble 2 cents
Rick
??? Hmmmm.....
It is not as if any of us are comfortable clipping out large chunks of Genesis to be tossed aside. But some of us are also uncomfortable using Genesis as the filter for scientific interpretation. Nor are we particularly comfortable in forcing Genesis through a science test. Some of us ask ourselves, "Why the Ark?" Just start over! A couple of days would be nothing to God. This world (the nonhuman) must be special. As christians, we should recognize that more than any unbeliever anyday, IMHO (I had to throw in the acronym! It was my turn!)
OK...I've resisted getting involved in this thread because I have a lot more to say on this topic than I probably will have time to say. But, now that I'm in...
A few opening comments:
1. I believe that there are things written in the OT that were written as parables or lessons and that are likely not history, including the opening of Genesis and the book of Job.
2. Barry's comment that all the Jewish scholars can't be wrong...well, a great many of them believed that Jesus was not the Messiah and that OT prophecies have nothing to do with him. It has already been pointed out that there has been historical disagrement with a literal reading of Genesis' creation story. I am not bothered if for centuries we have looked at Genesis as literal. For centuries the Jews expected an earthly king. It is my position that the church is not a finalized project. Rather, through time we have seen a changing church.
3. I can accept the position of those who argue for a mature universe, but I have not heard a good response to the question of God making the universe look old when it is young. It does seem somewhat deceptive.
Now, the one area in this discussion that seems to be lacking so far, is the position that this is poetry. Earlier the comparison to the poetice language of the Psalms was brought up, but not fully pursued. I think it really should be.
Let's begin by getting this "yom" thing out of the way. If I say my wife is the light of my life, do I really mean a literal light? Of course not. We understand it is metaphor. Can the same thing be happening in Genesis with "yom"? If so, the word can certainly still possess it's 24 hour day meaning with no problem. OK...so let's see if there are things going on that make us think this is poetry.
First, we need to throw out our pre-20th century notion of poetry with meter and rhyme. My understanding is that Hebrew poetry had more to do with repetition and balance or pairing of thoughts. Do we see this in Genesis?
Let's cosinder the repetition. From verse 1:1 through the end, 2:3 the phrase "And God" appears 30 (if I didn't lose count) times. Six times, once each day, we read the phrase "it was good" and the significant (both poetically and theologically) "very good" of the seventh day.
Each of the first six days ends with "and the evening and the morning". Once again, the seventh day is different and does not contain this phrase.
Now consider the pairings and balance of the days:
1st day = light and darkness
4th day = sun, moon and stars
the things that go with light and darkness;
2nd day = the sky and the water
5th day = living creatures in and above the waters
the things that go with the sky and water
3rd day = land and vegetation
6th day = animals that live on the land
the things that need land and vegetation
And the seventh day has no pair because it is a special day.
I believe that this is not only poetry, but Spirit inspired poetry.
What is a day? We say "I'm going to do this or that today" or "Do you know what I did yesterday?" or "I think we should do this or that tomorrow". To me, it seems that a day can be a point of accomplishment. We often measure our lives in days. Our mental framework for time is metered out in days. We can relate to days. So, if I'm a poet (once upon a time, and not all that good) and I want to express a period of accomplishment, the metaphor of "day" is perfect (would you expect less from God?).
The pairings of the creative act demonstrate the balance that God has given to His creation and the things in it. A balance that we humans lose when we lose the Garden.
Obviously, the seventh day is special. It is sanctified. There is no pairing for it, just as there is no equal to it or the Creator for whom it is kept Holy.
There...I've gone on long enough. Perhaps, at least, this might be a little food for thought (you understand, of course, I don't expect you to literally print this out and eat the paper)
:;):
Good post, Jim. I had never heard of or noticed that correlation between days 1-3 and 4-6. It is very poetic. Bottom line... God created it all.
ditto
I concur with Jim
Mike
Jim,
Very well written post. I certainly do not agree with it all (I believe Job was a real historical person not a parable), but you make some good points, and interesting observations.
I have never heard Genesis 1 thought of as a parable. In order to make that assertion, there must be another explanation for the origin of the universe. If Genesis 1 is figurative, then I have to ask how did it really happen?
my humble 2 cents
Rick
The hard part is choosing between extremes, maybe? 1) It is all literal (keep that in mind when understanding the two accounts and ALL the details) 2) Some is literal and some is figurative (that would be sort of confusing) 3) All figurative (God really did not do it like this at all?) 4) Somewhere in the midst of all this.
Each argument has some real issues to resolve. As I have said, the most "faithful" would appear to be the "literal" (even with some nebuluous tweeking to try to 'explain' the difficult parts. ie. "What is a day?" but it is also the least reflective. Maybe that is OK. No thought. Just accept. But to be fair, we must also be willing to treat the rest of the Bible the same way then? No thought. Just accept. Who cares what it really means. Does that make any sense?
It has occurred to me before that the Genesis 1 is really prophetic in nature. Those events are not recorded eyewitness accounts. God revealed this to Moses or whoever originally wrote it. So, in a way, it's prophecy/revelation. Just revelation about the past instead of the future.
All you have to do is begin studying later prophecy to see that there is a mixture of literal and figurative elements in prophetic language. Some of the things prophesied elsewhere in the Bible have metaphorical elements. The things written in the prophets were fulfilled... but, it actually takes the fulfillment or seeing what literally happened to understand what was metaphorical and what was literal.
Take the book of Revelation as another example. I'm sure most people on here see figurative and metaphorical language in some of it and take other aspects of it literally. Well, it's always real obvious which is which, right? ??? I mean, there's going to be a 1000-year reign at some point, isn't there?
It has occurred to me before that the Genesis 1 is really prophetic in nature. Those events are not recorded eyewitness accounts. God revealed this to Moses or whoever originally wrote it. So, in a way, it's prophecy/revelation. Just revelation about the past instead of the future.
All you have to do is begin studying later prophecy to see that there is a mixture of literal and figurative elements in prophetic language. Some of the things prophesied elsewhere in the Bible have metaphorical elements. The things written in the prophets were fulfilled... but, it actually takes the fulfillment or seeing what literally happened to understand what was metaphorical and what was literal.
Take the book of Revelation as another example. I'm sure most people on here see figurative and metaphorical language in some of it and take other aspects of it literally. Well, it's always real obvious which is which, right? ??? I mean, there's going to be a 1000-year reign at some point, isn't there?
DCR,
Your point on Revelation is why I have appreciated this thread, there is no way we are all going on this issue, but it is nice to discuss it without getting into a who is saved or who can fellowship.
Bottom line I can fellowship with everyone in here, regardless of their position on Genesis 1.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Rick,
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that if G.1 is a parable that there must be another explanation for the creation?
As posted above, the point is that God did it and did it all. I guess I see the purpose of G.1 as being the message of the power of the creator in relation to his creation; His goodness and man's need to remember both.
We run into all kinds of problems when we try to make it fit either a literal six days or a representative six days. Many of the earlier posts have detailed those problems.
I am certainly not dogmatic about this view. When I get to the other side I might well find out I was wrong...I may even someday reach that conclusion in this life, and that's OK. But for now, that is the best understanding I have been able to reach.
I could care less anyone's view on this matter... its not crucial to salvation.
However I want to make one point... the only reason you'd assume days were longer than 24 is evolution... period.
Evolution requires vast amounts of time to get us from bacteria, to frogs to apes to homosapiens... It requires even more vast amounts of time to even form a theory that life could arise from non-life randomly.
Just know that when you decide Genesis isn't 24 hour days... people do that because they can't compromise some scientific knowledge they learned somewhere with the power of God.
Fact is there are thousands of weird things in carbon dating, radiometric dating and geology... its a study most of us shouldn't even pursue because its a waste of time. But the consensus hasn't been finalized no matter what secular scientists tell us.
I'll just leave everyone who answered "false" with this. Don't bet the bank on secular science. They may not be right... and their arguments on the world being millions of years old have lots of room for doubt. The book on science is never closed... Copernicus couldn't close it, Darwin couldn't close it, Edison couldn't close it, Hawking hasn't closed it....
Also remember that evolution is a secular way... a physical way of looking at things that cannot account for spiritual realms. Its not that it attacks spiritual things... it just can't put any stock in them because they cannot be detected with the senses.
A scientific way of believing in the creation of the Earth cannot include any spiritual power at all... thats just how it is. It has to be based on physical powers.
Also a physical way of looking at our development and makeup can't account for love or even religion. Love is a chemical reaction... religion is simply a response to stressful stimuli... a pasttime that hairless apes participate in to make life go by easier.
Think about these things before you let a secular theory push all the spirituality and things you can comprehend or understand out of the formation of the cosmos.
I also do not lose any sleep over this issue, but I think you go too far when you say that the desire to adopt or promote evolution is the only reason to believe the earth is old.
There are reasons to at least consider the possibility of an old earth beyond the desire to promote, accept or adopt the theory of evolution. The primary reason is an effort to consider the substantial evidence that the earth and the universe are old. True that dating techniques are subject to error and are revised as new data is developed, but they all point to great age. Additionally, distances we can measure suggest that the cosmos is much older than 6,000 years. Again, I suppose you can simply assume that the measuring techniques are wrong, but in the absence of some evidence that they are I think it is unfair to lump all of those who believe or consider the universe to be of great age in the evolution pot.
It seems to me that you are assuming that if the great age theory is correct then evolution must follow. IN other words, evolution is possible with great age. Otherwise age seems to be relatively unimportant.
Perhaps those who wish to lump all "older" earth proponents into a 'said' or 'unsaid' preference for secular than sacred faith would be unfair. It would be just as unfair to lump all "baby" earth proponents into 'out of touch with reality' flat earthers that took science to illuminate the fallacy of the flat earth theological doctrine. We all should be aware of the discoveries which occur apart from interpretation. It is the interpretations (from both camps) that raise our red flags, not the investigations of the evidences, biblical and extrabiblical. I have absolutely no doubt in the existence of my Creator.... How he actually chose to reveal his power to me is just as exciting and awe inspiring as the interpretation of sacred literature. Both are powerful words.
Dennis, I hate to use this analogy because I don't want you to get the wrong idea about how I think we should take sides on this matter... I wish to repeat that this is not a salvation issue, an issue which fellowship lines should not be drawn on... its simply an opinion.
Consider this.
On the issue of the Bible being the word of God there is room for doubt. There are without a doubt inconsistencies in the manuscripts. We do not have originals, but we do have copies of the original manuscripts whose authors claimed they were eye witnesses... so there is a small room for doubt in the question of whether the bible really is the word of God.
We as Christians take a standpoint on this that is both informed and agrees with our faith and advances it. It is by faith that we take this stance... Read Hebrews 11:1 if you doubt that any of us live by faith.
In the debate over the age of the Earth its kinda the same way. On one side you have people who date the Earth using C-14 dated pre-living materials, and rocks dated with various radiometric dating methods.. you have tree ring dating and several other ways of measuring the age of the Earth. All methods are based on assumptions (constant levels of C14, constant levels of other radioactive isotopes, nothing added, assumed constant half-life, etc.). All of this is assumed to advance a billion year old earth so the accepted explanation of the origin of life (a secular non-spiritual emergence of life through evolution) can be accounted for.
Thats the facts. There is doubt in dating our universe and this Earth.
So you either take the route that eventually leads to an immensely old Earth thats used to explain God out of creation, or you on faith believe the doubt in current dating methods and believe God created the Earth, universe and all in it.
The only reason to assume an old Earth is to facilitate evolution... most scientists until Darwin never questioned a young Earth... it wasn't until his theory was streamlined and became mainline that scientists began disregarding doubt with their methods and in contradiction to the doubt chose the dates that facilitated evolution.
And let me state that this position is not shared by all... some simply take the old Earth position because they've seen something written in a paper or on the internet or in a classroom that convinced them. They may do this innocently... but what they may not understand is that the dates that they have accepted were used down the line in the scientific community to facilitate evolutionary principles.
A worldview is not a serious of disjointed beliefs that link to each other like a computer database... a worldview could be viewed visually as a series of circles within each other... the outermost circle is the worldview and everything within it is influenced by that worldview.. Some beliefs trump others in that worldview.
In my own God is the outermost circle... with that Jesus, the resurrection and several other things influence all ideas of philosophy and action within my life.
For a Christian to say that the universe is billions of years old, they are inadvertantly putting scientific thought in that outermost circle.
I may be wrong but history does account for this... from the shift of publicly applauded creation oriented notables like Sir Isaac Newton, to evolutionary minded individuals like Stephen Hawking to events like the Scopes Monkey Trial.. its obvious that evolution was not the accepted theory.. and there has been a large shift on the understanding of the history of the universe since that theories inception... this billion year old timeline is uneeded without a theory which states our origin is random and solely physical...
. . . The only reason to assume an old Earth is to facilitate evolution. . .
Sorry, I disagree for the reasons stated above.
Creation scientists have massaged just as much data as secular scientists, maybe more so, since many feel they are on a mission from God.
But simply put, there are many, many reasons other than Evolution to assume an old earth (beginning with, as I keep saying, the timing of the creation of the sun and moon, and continuing with recognizing literary forms, and realizing that not all are literal scientific statements).
Or I could just go with the evidence of my own eyes. Look up at the stars. Go look in the Grand Canyon. It's really tough for me to believe that this Earth has only been around for 6,000 years.
Creation scientists have massaged just as much data as secular scientists, maybe more so, since many feel they are on a mission from God.
To clarify a bit, the best science doesn't happen when you start with an assumed conclusion and then look for data to back this up.
Much of current creation science reminds me of the attmpts by D. James Kennedy and others to make the history of our founding fathers into a nearly wholly Christian history. They tend to take quotes out of context and give credence to the most spurious stories if they seem to prove their point. For instance, I heard Kennedy once say that Franklin had remarked that he was not a Christian because he had never really looked into Christianity or thought much about it. Nice quote, except it ignores Franklin's writings about religion, his friendships and partnerships with preachers, and the long discussions about religion he, as a young man, had with Cotten Mather.
Much of the creation science I hear and the arguments for a young earth seem to take the same tact. They seem to choose data not based on the reliability of the data itself, but rather based on whether it helps their cause.
In other words, they seem to do the same type of thing they always point out the evolutionist doing.
edit:
Here's a link to a John Clayton article that says some of this better than I'm saying it:
Motives and Assumptions in the
Age-of-the-Earth Question (http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/MotivesAndAssumptionsInTheAgeOfTheEarthQuestion.html)[/color]
I understand what you mean Marc, and you are right creation scientists are very guilty of it....
I really hate the back and forth bickering that goes between the two groups (creation scientists and naturalists)... it reminds me of the uncomprising attitudes in partisan politics which I despise.
I guess my own believes are in defense against evolution. I see it as a terrible theory that takes faith in anything unseen and scoffs at it... I take the reasonable doubt in theories on sedimentary rock formation, dating methods and such an bet the bank on them because I don't like adding any fuel to the evolution fire... I hope thats a valid enough reason to do that.
Or I could just go with the evidence of my own eyes. Look up at the stars. Go look in the Grand Canyon. It's really tough for me to believe that this Earth has only been around for 6,000 years.
This is really subjective to your worldview though... When I look at the Grand Canyon I see an culmination of the Earth's hydrologic cycle's power, and when I look at the stars I see a lot that I just can't comprehend (because telescopes and physics don't convince me). I live next to the longest cave system in the world, I've crawled through caves on my own, I've studied them and I've heard all the theories on their formation... but when I hear all the old Earth stuff on their formation I don't see it...
Plus for some reason humans have gotten the idea recently that a thousand years isn't a very long time... this is very weird because if you research geneaology you start to realize how much is forgotten in three generations, let alone 30...[/color]
I agree that it is subjective, and in a sense, that's my point. It doesn't take a belief in evolution to come to these conclusions.
btw, if you check out the article I linked to, you'll notice that though the first half shows some faulty reasoning made by creation scientists, the second half points out the faulty reasoning of evolutionary scientists.
It makes me really appreciate that Foy Wallace quote I published before. It's good to know that, no matter what winding paths man leads us down, in the beginning, there is God. :bow:
To clarify a bit, the best science doesn't happen when you start with an assumed conclusion and then look for data to back this up.
I guess 'best science' is subjective here because even though that statement sounds good... the process of investigation that is science cannot escape the preconcieved notions of its 'investigators.' Thomas Kuhn wrote an excellent book "The structure of scientific revolutions" that explains how certain scientific theories have evolved :;): over the years. The idea is, if you believe what the Bible says, you can't help but interperet data in that light. Especially when interpereting it otherwise would deny the validity of your worldview (or part of it, which is too much IMO)
But there's a difference in interpreting the data in light of your world view and intentionally searching for data that will back up your views. The latter is something like revisionist history, where writers pick and choose certain historical quotes which will make history seem to conform to their notions while ignoring all data that doesn't conform.
While preconceptions will always exist, good science, like good history, searches for truth instead of trying to create the appearance of truth. If in the process of the search you discover that the data doesn't conform to the common notion, that's good, that's how progress is made. However, intellectual honesty requires that the scientist not bend the data to conform to his expectations.
Intellectual honesty is one thing...
But there is someone whose ways are above our ways, and whose thoughts are above our thoughts.
We can be intellectually honest with ourselves, with the world, with other scientists, with anyone other than God, but what does it profit us?
What ultimate level of knowlege or truth do we wish to obtain other than the Word of God?
I'm not saying that there have never been dishonest folks who 'massaged' data in their favor for whatever reason. But I think thats more an exception than the rule.
We are so used to hearing this billions of years stuff, and evolution stuff, over and over and over.
It just worked its way into the 'worldview' and its hard to think around it. Like the world is guilty til proven innocent.
It's all theory, all of it. No one was there from the beginning, except God. And He had a book written.
So I trust it, and that doesn't bother me.
In order for science to be considered legitimate, it has to be conducted by accepted means. When Creation scientists fail to look at data critically, they harm the reputation of their whole movement. There is too much of this going on, imho.
I keep going back to D. James Kennedy. I have heard so much bad science and bad history presented on his program that I can no longer take what he says seriously. If he is willing to accept anything that supports his views, whether the evidence supplied is valid or not, then I find it hard to trust anything he says.
Creation science needs to be careful that this doesn't happen to the whole movement. It's very easy to fall into this trap.
If God is real, then intellectual honesty will lead to God. I truly believe this.
Marc I don't really have a problem with science... I have a problem with science being used to rule a person's worldview. The scientific method is based on the five senses and allows for nothing that cannot be detected by those five senses (please let me know if this statement is wrong). Its wonderful for detecting and explaining many things... love, emotions, faith, self-sacrifice, etc... in my opinion its worthess to explain these.
The process of using the scientific method to explain origions may have a fatal flaw in that it insists reliance on specific tools when there are actually a lot more tools in the bag to use.
That why I have such a hard time using science to explain our origins... and I know that time is a huge factor in our origins, as you said both creation scientists and naturalists use time to facilitate their own views, I am aware of that. As I said earlier reading CSR and Talkorigins battling each other daily is as tedious as watching CNN and Foxnews...
I think our origins are much better explained using a combination of science, philosophy, spirituality, logical arguments, past conceptions and just plain ole faith.
Two or three of those tools aren't allowed by naturalists in the explanation of the cosmos...
You know what I mean?
I have been studying my accusation more BTW about the old earth age only being there to facilitate evolution... from what I've read no agreement is even there... Some say that no one believe in an old earth before Darwin's 1859 publishing of the "Origin of Species", some say there were many who had changed their beliefs due to then recent geological findings. It may be more than anything the prevalent thinking of mankind on the age of the Earth seems to stem from religions than evolution.
Many pagan religions believed in an eons-old Earth and creation scientists have claimed that some pre 1859 scientists were simply reviving the old pagan thoughts when many of them due to findings in geology and that time went against the norm of that time which was Usher's timeline... I tend to believe this because there is a point that the scientific method has to cease use.
It may or may not be true, but it is interesting. The only facts I do have on the matter is that up until 1933.. a young Earth was taught in American schools... since the Scopes Monkey Trial it has not been... not only has it not been taught, it has been ridiculed.
As a student of history I've seen that just because socially accepted norms change certainly doesn't mean the present ideology is correct, which is why Pilate's question to Jesus Christ was so profound... and why Jesus's answer should be earth-shaking to us...
I do struggle with fellow Christians trying to use the scientific method to explain their origins (not saying anyone on this thread is, but I have seen it from acquaintances and others). There are some things unexplainable.. the miracles of Jesus, Jesus's resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing lame hands, samson's episodes of strength, donkey's talking, the Egyptian plagues, etc.,etc.,
Believing all the miracles and resurrection is hogwash.. you can lose an essential part of the "story", the immense power of God, the resurrection, and humilty in believing the creator is more powerful than the created.
Believing that all is explainable by science points to the fall and mankinds desire to know all things. We are created beings and I don't think we have the resources or the capacity to know all things... are all things even physically explainable?
I think of the current thinking of Stephen Hawking in the universe... he is trying to get around the origin of all things by saying the big bang will return to a big crunch and then it will all start again... to me that is so scary because it virtually guarantees no creator will ever be present... and that we are just hairless apes musing on "why".
I'm just philosophizing now... no need to reply... :D
:amen:
Complete naturalistic science does demand we only use certain tools to explore and explain the world around us. But who 'invented' science???? Who made the rules, and said that only naturalistic means can be used? What is widely accepted as science is just as controversial as the scientific theories themselves!!
There is no shame, no lack of intelligence, no dishonesty, and no fault in looking at the world around you, and using every sense available to you, to explain what you experience. And for Christians, we know God as our Father and our Creator. We know Him and experience His power every day of our lives, and we have every reason to see the world we live in through that perspective.
Science doesn't define us, we define science!
I might amend that last statement and say God defines science. :D
I might amend that last statement and say God defines science. :D
Well, sure. In the end, He has the final say. I guess I was thinking on a more human level.
Absolutely Marc... God does define science.. or the natural laws and order of the universe... but who is to say we understand it perfectly and does God tell us that we can only use our physical senses to examine it?
I would have to say we'll never be able to understand it perfectly and God without a doubt tells us to rely on more than our flesh to learn of the world and his will...
Absolutely Marc... God does define science.. or the natural laws and order of the universe... but who is to say we understand it perfectly and does God tell us that we can only use our physical senses to examine it?
I would have to say we'll never be able to understand it perfectly and God without a doubt tells us to rely on more than our flesh to learn of the world and his will...
:amen:
Reading verse 5 of Genesis 1 , will suppy the answer if you have an accurate bible, hope that helps. Yes 24 hrs is biblical.
Faith in the Word of God ,will settle all arguments, for those that believe it. The ones that dont believe it are made known by some other reason outside of the word of God.
I dont understand all that God has said in the bible, but I do trust He knows more and can be trusted more then anyone else.
So I accept what He says as truth , regardless of my understanding, and I find the more I trust Him and His word the more it becomes real to me, if I hold on to it ,it prooves in time eventually the reality.
:amen:
I know a lot of people say it doesn't really matter what you believe about Genesis/creation to be a Christian.
I guess I would partially agree that the doctrine of Christ as a whole is more important than simply creation, but you sort of get the cart before the horse there.
Christ is described as being the one by whom the creation was created! Genesis means beginning. Without it, the rest of the Bible doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And in the new testament when Jesus quotes Genesis, I'm pretty sure He believed it.
All in all, what one believes about Genesis may not make or break one's faith, but it's one crack in the foundation that I'd rather not have.
It says so right in Genesis 1.
" .....And the evening and the morning were the first day.
.....And the evening and the morning were the second day.
.....And the evening and the morning were the third day.
.....And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
.....And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
.....And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Six evenings and mornings. All done in the day that heaven and earth were made by the Lord God. Genesis 2:4
How many evenings and mornings would there be in 6000 years? One evening and one morning at the begining and ending of each thousand years. I think not.
:amen:
I guess it's just too simple for some people to accept.
I don't think the concept of evening and morning being being equal to a 24-hour day before the sun and moon, with their accompanying gravitational fields, were created is a simple one at all. :D
I don't think the concept of evening and morning being being equal to a 24-hour day before the sun and moon, with their accompanying gravitational fields, were created is a simple one at all. :D
Funny, I don't remember the Genesis account going into that much excrutiating detail.... I guess God forgot to explain all of that to us. It's a good thing we highly intelligent ape-like creatures got it all straightened out.... Whew!
:headscratch:
I don't think the concept of evening and morning being being equal to a 24-hour day before the sun and moon, with their accompanying gravitational fields, were created is a simple one at all. :D
Funny, I don't remember the Genesis account going into that much excrutiating detail.... I guess God forgot to explain all of that to us. It's a good thing we highly intelligent ape-like creatures got it all straightened out.... Whew!
:headscratch:
Yep. It says the sun and moon were created on day four, after it mentions the morning and evening. Not excruciating detail, just something that often gets ignored by people who say the whole thing is simple. :D
And sometimes, when it does get noticed, people try to explain it away with some
really excruciating logic. Were the Sun and Moon Really Created on the Fourth Day? (http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q2.htm)
I am a bit surprised at your talking about "ape-like creatures" though. I wouldn't have thought you were into the Darwin thing (and since I haven't said a thing to indicate that I believe in evolution, I know you couldn't have been referring to what I wrote :angel: ).
But anyway, no, those of us who don't hold to the idea that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days aren't making things more complicated than they are; we're just recognizing the problems inherent with the theory (which is extra-biblical, btw--no mention of the length of the days in Genesis, and a day is not universally 24 hours).[/color]
I don't think the concept of evening and morning being being equal to a 24-hour day before the sun and moon, with their accompanying gravitational fields, were created is a simple one at all. :D
Funny, I don't remember the Genesis account going into that much excrutiating detail.... I guess God forgot to explain all of that to us. It's a good thing we highly intelligent ape-like creatures got it all straightened out.... Whew!
:headscratch:
Yep. It says the sun and moon were created on day four, after it mentions the morning and evening. Not excruciating detail, just something that often gets ignored by people who say the whole thing is simple. :D
And sometimes, when it does get noticed, people try to explain it away with some really excruciating logic. Were the Sun and Moon Really Created on the Fourth Day? (http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q2.htm)
I am a bit surprised at your talking about "ape-like creatures" though. I wouldn't have thought you were into the Darwin thing (and since I haven't said a thing to indicate that I believe in evolution, I know you couldn't have been referring to what I wrote :angel: ).
But anyway, no, those of us who don't hold to the idea that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days aren't making things more complicated than they are; we're just recognizing the problems inherent with the theory (which is extra-biblical, btw--no mention of the length of the days in Genesis, and a day is not universally 24 hours).[/color]
While I certainly do not agree with you there, I will apologize for my tongue in cheek response above. I wrote it more out of frustration and sarcasm than out of an actual point by point refutation of what you stated.
However, I do find it to be a complication of the simple when the bible says 6 days, comprised of morning and evening. And those who feel obligated to hold to current scientific theory say thousands, millions, or even billions of years, and try to fit it into the biblical account.
The sun and moon being created on the fourth day does nothing but establish that God was able to create a time scale, with mornings and evening, without the sun and the moon even existing. I prefer to look at Genesis as evidence of how great a creator God is, rather than force an interpretation that goes beyond the simple meaning of the words. All in the name of reconciling what we humans believe to be true and what God has told us clearly, plainly, and simply through his word.
P.S. I was generalizing when I made the 'ape' comment. I realize that you did not claim to agree with evolution. Only with the millions and billions of years that scientists claim.
Of course the eons theory was considered because they had realized that that's how long it would take for evolution to work.
*excerpt from article on AiG*
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning.'
A number, and the phrase 'evening and morning,' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning'11 23 times. 'Evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night.' Outside of Genesis 1, 'night' is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. 'in those days.'14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.
There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
Sorry to drop by late, but I was looking to see if you were getting involved in the ID debate being held outside.
I have not read everyone's post, so I apologize if I am covering old territory. In fact, I would have thought I might have posted here earlier, but since I hadn't cast my vote, I doubt it. If I had, again I apologize.
First of all, everyone seems satisfied to define yom as being from dusk ( 'ereb) to dawn ( boqer). According to my paymaster, that is not a "24-hour day.
I'm with you. God is definately not in our time zone. In fact, from His perspective, the entire creation probably ocurred instantaneously as He 'thought' or willed it into being. The Genesis account is inspired of course, so we know we're meant to get something out of it, and we do get a lot of information like the order of creation, the entrance of sin and death into the world, etc. The days in the creation week set up our work week, with a day for rest/worship... They are mentioned in the ten commandments, and Jesus referred to them often in the New Testament.
I won't go militant on anyone who suggests that things have been around for millions of billions of years, but we are told that death only entered the world by sin once man was created and -sinned-
So then we know that evolution by natural selection couldn't have been going on all those years beforehand because there was no death..... So then we wonder why or if there were millions and billions of years at all???
But then, we reread Genesis and see 6 days. And I am content to stick with that.
(This rambling on has been brought to you by... rainy afternoon. Tune in next rainy afternoon as I prepare to soap-box some more...) :onrant: :D
I realize I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but how in the world could we possibly know if God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days?
Do I believe there were six days? Yes. Do I believe the days are literal? Yes. But why should we assume there were 24 hours in each day, each hour sixty minutes long, when Genesis probably written before such a time scheme had developed? I think (and this is just a stab in the dark) that the author may have been speaking about six literal days, according to whatever was considered a day when the book of Genesis was written. Evening and morning refer to the end and the beginning of each day, of course.
Yes. But why should we assume there were 24 hours in each day, each hour sixty minutes long, when Genesis probably written before such a time scheme had developed?
Perhaps because Exodus 20:8-11 interprets it as 24 hours literal days and uses it as an example for the Sabbath? "Let scripture interpret scripture."
Why question is...why do some find it so incredible that God could create in six literal days? Do we believe that God can't handle this? Some of the early Christians believed God did it in one day.
Barry[/color]
It is not an issue of unbelief, Barry. God MAY have created the earth in six literal 24 hour days, or all at once, but I do not find either of those positions integral to my faith. My faith in God would not be destroyed if I found that the earth is really millions of years old, or even if there were a historical slip-up or scientific inaccuracy in Scripture.
Yes. But why should we assume there were 24 hours in each day, each hour sixty minutes long, when Genesis probably written before such a time scheme had developed?
Perhaps because Exodus 20:8-11 interprets it as 24 hours literal days and uses it as an example for the Sabbath? "Let scripture interpret scripture."
Why question is...why do some find it so incredible that God could create in six literal days? Do we believe that God can't handle this? Some of the early Christians believed God did it in one day.
Barry
I was once looking at a site that had early Christian writings online when I ran across the following about an ancient text called the
Epistle of Barnabas that made reference to the days of creation (don't know if this is supposed to be the Barnabas we're familiar with from the New Testament... probably not).
The Epistle of Barnabas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html)
But, notice this part:
Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.
So, they did some interesting reasoning from scripture. In this case, he seems to be applying the concept that a day is a thousand years (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8). He interprets six days as six thousand years.
I'm not saying that's right. But, it is interesting, I thought.[/color]
Even if God created in 6 thousand years rather than 6 days, it is still a far cry from what mainsteam science claims with their billions of years.
I believe six days means six days. I agree with clever disguise that it won't shake the very core of my faith if I find out some day that I'm wrong.
But as I said earlier in this thread, it is one crack in the foundation I'd rather not have.
The way I look at it is that there are some mysterious, enigmatic things I read in early Genesis... some of which I don't completely understand.
Has anyone heard of the "Gap Theory"? Some believe that there may have been a unknown span of time implied in Genesis 1:1... an initial creation, then some kind of destruction, and then a new creation recorded in Genesis 1:2 and following.
I'm personally not interested in promoting theories like that. Anything like it is really just speculation. But, what I am sure of is that there is much I don't know about the beginning (anything from why God did it to the question of the origin of Satan and the angels, etc.).
Genesis was not intended to be a science textbook. I think that looking for precise answers about the mode and timing of creation in its account may be reading a modern bias into an ancient text.
I believe that the earth is billions of years old, but that does not mean that I have a lower opinion of the sovereignty or power of God.
Mike
I believe that God completed His creation in six thenty-four hour days. This is an integral part of my faith. I'm not saying that it has to be an integral part of yours. For me, if the earth is really billions of years old, then Genesis is uninspired, which also means that all the prophets, apostles, and Christ who quoted from Genesis are also uninspired.
I believe in the doctrine of apparent age. How old was Adam at the moment of his creation? He probably appeared 30 or 40 years old, but in reality he only a few seconds old. When God created all the trees, beasts, fish, He created them as mature species. The same is true with the earth. The earth is mature, but in reality, I believe, it is only a few thousand years old.
I understand what you're saying, OkiMar. I don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of your faith, either.
Christians can be united in Christ even if they disagree on this issue.
Maybe we have a different concept of what it means to be "inspired," or maybe we look at the text in a different way.
I don't think that the truth of the resurrection stands or falls with how we view Genesis chapter 1.
Mike
I believe that the earth is billions of years old
Why?
Thanks,
Barry[/color]
As far as the 'apparent age' theory goes, a good illustration that has been used (perhaps even in this thread already) is that of Jesus' first miracle.
At the wedding feast, Jesus turned water into wine. Not just any wine, but what those at the feast considered the best wine they had that night. If a scientist could step back in time, take a sample of that very same wine, and subject it to all kinds of modern tests and experiments, that scientist would reason that it was made from grapes (fruit of the vine) that were first planted in the ground, then nurtured, tended, picked from the vine, gathered, squished (a technical term), certain specific ingredients added, stored in flasks until the appropriate time, then poured during the wedding feast for the guests' drinking pleasure.
However, we know that this wine was not made that way. Jesus simply made it so. The wine that was apparantly made the same way as any other wine, was made from just water, at Jesus' command. Instantly.
Mike:
I believe that the earth is billions of years old
Why?
Thanks,
Barry
I've covered this in multiple threads over the past several years. Maybe some of those are still available.
Briefly, though, I would say that I find the data and conclusions drawn by experts in various fields (especially astronomy, cosmology, geology, and paleontology) to be compelling. There are very good scientific reasons to believe that the universe and the earth are quite old.
I don't think this is in conflict with the Biblical record, and I don't think it should undermine anyone's faith. This idea
is in conflict only with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
Finally, as I have said repeatedly, this is a "fringe issue" for me. Although I have strong opinions on the topic, I have no problem embracing my brothers and sisters who believe differently about the age of God's creation.
Mike[/color]
Briefly, though, I would say that I find the data and conclusions drawn by experts in various fields (especially astronomy, cosmology, geology, and paleontology) to be compelling. There are very good scientific reasons to believe that the universe and the earth are quite old.
There are many experts in those same fields that believe in a young earth.
Barry[/color]
There are many experts in those same fields that believe in a young earth.
Barry
Actually, I disagree with this. There certainly are many people with degrees in one of the sciences who would advance an argument for a young earth, but there are precious few recognized experts in their fields who would make such a claim.
Mike[/color]
Mike,
I am talking about people who are the heads of their respective science departments in secular universities.
Barry
Barry,
Okay. Educate me, please.
Mike
Mike,
THIS LINK (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp) will take you to a list of many Young Earth Creation Scientists, some of which are professors in secular universities.
Barry
Interesting. I don't know these people, and have only heard of a couple of them. But I will look into it. Thanks for the link.
Nonetheless, They are of course in the distinct minority among scientists if they all believe in a young universe.
Name dropping is not without merit, as I certainly have to reconsider my opinion if it is opposed to those I would consider experts in the field. However, I do have enough of a science background to be able to follow the arguments and look at the data for myself.
I still maintain that the evidence presented in creation itself argues strongly for an old universe. And, that stance is consistent with the revelation in scripture.
Mike
Mike,
That is fine, but you will have to admit that no one can accurately state "scientists believe in an old earth." It should be "some scientists believe in an old earth while other scientists believe in a young earth." The funny thing is, they are studying the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. I will freely admit there is bias on both sides.
Barry
Barry,
Your statement is correct. Painting this issue with a broad brush won't work.
But, you are in the minority position. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It's just something to ponder.
Let's look at this from another angle. The evidence is strong for an old earth/universe. Do you disbelieve the evidence, or do you think that God made the universe to appear old, when it is not? Or is there another alternative?
Mike
Check out this article/story (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp) . It presents a very simplified position, but I instantly liked it. It addresses the issue of "did God make the universe to appear old when it is not?"
It's not really a scientific argument.
Mike,
I do not believe the evidence I've seen. The dating methods contradict each other.
In addition, I believe the Scripture has an edge over scientific methodology and that in the end, the Scripture always wins out. I am not anti-science, but the fact is that the Bible has always been way ahead of science. It is just a matter of time before science catches up. Remember when scientists believed the earth was flat? God told us the earth was a sphere long before science discovered it. I could give many other references but you are probably already familiar with them.
I am not a scientist, but I have a fairly extensive theological education and know that there is no way we can make the language of the Genesis account mean long days, or fit a "gap" of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 without mutilating the text. I will trust God's revelation before I will trust science any day of the week.
In addition, the ONLY reason to believe in an old earth is if you accept evolutionary theory.
Barry
In addition, the ONLY reason to believe in an old earth is if you accept evolutionary theory.
Barry, this statement is too strong. It may be one reason, but not the only reason. For example, I believe in an old earth primarily because of the astronomical data. I don't believe in macro-evolution (I think we are both using the word in the same way -- I don't want us to talk past each other. I've done that before!)
Mike[/color]
Mike,
Have you read any texts by Young Earth Astronomers?
I hate to keep pointing you to the same website, but they tend to have the best info.
PLEASE CLICK HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp)
Barry
[!--EDIT|Barry|1132113983--]
Marzipan,
Interesting parable. The apparent age argument is impossible to refute (I think!)
Could God have made the universe a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age, and could he have done this so well that there would be no way to distinguish between his apparently aged universe and a truly aged universe? Of course he could!
God could also have created the universe one hundred years ago, and we were all born into a world with apparent age and apparent history. Or, he may have created the universe five minutes ago, creating us with apparent memories of things that never happened.
How could we ever prove this wrong? I don't think we can. And, if it turns out to be true, then it is okay with me. God certainly doesn't need my permission to do what he wants to do!
To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.
If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.
Mike
Marzipan,
Interesting parable. The apparent age argument is impossible to refute (I think!)
Could God have made the universe a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age, and could he have done this so well that there would be no way to distinguish between his apparently aged universe and a truly aged universe? Of course he could!
God could also have created the universe one hundred years ago, and we were all born into a world with apparent age and apparent history. Or, he may have created the universe five minutes ago, creating us with apparent memories of things that never happened.
How could we ever prove this wrong? I don't think we can. And, if it turns out to be true, then it is okay with me. God certainly doesn't need my permission to do what he wants to do!
To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.
If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.
Mike
I think that's what the logical types call a slippery slope. :D
But I know what you're saying, and you make a good point.
I personally believe that if you trust what the Bible says pretty plainly about creation, then whatever "evidence" you encounter in the world can be interpereted within that framework. I realise for "science" to be a global study, its constructs cannot rest upon one world religion. But that is a whole other debate. As a Christian, I can trust the creation account, and interepret data I come across accordingly. What a lot of creation scientists do and have done, is prove that the same "facts" are interpreted two different ways, by two opposing groups, and that neither can be conclusively true or false based on that data. But the Christian has faith in God to back it up, where the naturalist has only faith.
Barry,
I have read a lot of young earth creationist theories. I remain unconvinced. I will, however, spend some time on the website you are pointing me to, and will try to honestly re-evaluate this again.
Much of what I have read in the YE camp seems to be an effort to make the data fit a pre-determined conclusion drawn from a certain scriptural hermeneutic.
There is also plenty of bias to go around on the other side, as well!
However, YE dogmatic positions remind me of the church's position affirming a geocentric universe, and the subsequent persecution of Galileo. The official position was derived from a certain reading of scripture, and no amount of observable data would convince the hierarchy otherwise.
As the huge amount of evidence to the contrary grew, however, Christians began to see that the Bible could indeed be read faithfully without mandating a geocentric position.
I believe the YE/OE controversy is a similar situation.
Mike
The point I was getting at, and digressed from, was that a Christian who believes the literal creation account, has the same evidence behind them, but interepreted differently. I do not believe that any damage would be done to the "real" work of science, which is mainly research to find ways to help people, cure disease, help cut out pollution, preserve the land, the life on this planet. I couldn't think of a better purpose for something like science to exist, and I wouldn't doubt that God might have intended science to work to that end. I don't think that God intended His creation to question His revelation and spend their time, money, resources, talent on "reinventing the wheel" by trying to figure out how the universe began or how life began or evolved, etc. When He already told us that, and spared us the investigation. We should be using science to improve life on earth as much as possible, and as much as is proper. (Since we do that have that home in heaven waiting for us.)
However, YE dogmatic positions remind me of the church's position affirming a geocentric universe, and the subsequent persecution of Galileo. The official position was derived from a certain reading of scripture, and no amount of observable data would convince the hierarchy otherwise.
I think you might be confusing the Roman Catholic Church's official stance on the whole thing with Galileo and so forth, with the belief of the "church at large".
The RCC does not speak for all believers, and it never has. I'm sure you know this, but I wanted to make sure.
A lot of people I talk to confuse the "official" RCC position on certain things with what regular ole Christians believe.
Good points, Marzipan. There are plenty of Christian OE scientists who have developed theories that are consonant with the scriptural account in Genesis.
See this site, for example:
Hugh Ross' website (http://www.reasons.org/)
I think an even better way to look at this, though, is that Genesis 1 was not written to teach us about the physical science of creation, but instead the theology of creation. That doesn't make it wrong -- but trying to interpret things in a precise modern scientific sense that were written in an ancient culture for different reasons could lead us to an improper conclusion.
For example, I think what Genesis 1 does teach that would be new and different at the time is: there is one all-powerful God, who created everything; this God did not create the world out of pre-existing primordial chaos, but created ex nihilo; humanity is created in the image of God; God cares a great deal for humanity. I'm sure there are others.
I think these are the earth-shaking new truths that ancient Mesopotamians would see taught in Genesis 1. Our concern over a creation timetable would probably be of little importance to them, and may not be the intent of the author at all.
Mike
Interesting discussion!
I'll check back tomorrow. I can't remember the last time I posted this much in one day.
Mike
To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.
If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.
Mike:
This is one problem I have with the apparent age argument: namely, it is an unprovable assumption. It also presumes that the Fall did not introduce any new cosmological alterations into creation (which conflicts with how I understand the Genesis accounts and Romans 8), but that all the current "physical laws" operate in precisely the same way as they did prior to the fall. But if the fall did not introduce any new cosmological laws, then did God build death and decay into the creation of the universe? You see, I think, my problems here.
It also assumes that the stay in Eden was temporally very very short. I recognize that some strands of the traditional interpretation of the creation accounts say this very thing, but I'm not sure that this is anything more than a
theologoumenon. I see no necessitating reason for a short stay in Eden.
Finally, I cannot but agree with you that an old earth understanding is in no way contradictory to the Scriptural account. Most objections to old earth understandings rest entirely on understanding the genealogical accounts as lacking any gaps. Add it all up and Usher is right. But if young earth creation science folks are willing to allow that Usher's timetable cannot be maintained, and thus some of them advocate 10,000 years or so, then there is no
biblical justification necessitating a young earth creationism.
But if young earth creation science folks are willing to allow that Usher's timetable cannot be maintained, and thus some of them advocate 10,000 years or so, then there is no biblical justification necessitating a young earth creationism.
CD,
I would agree with you that we can't put an exact number on the age of the earth. But let's be generous and allow for gaps in the genealogy and say it is 30,000 years old. That is a far cry from billions upon billions of years.
In addition, people like Hugh Ross teach that there was a sub-human race prior to Adam. The old earth proponents come up with many theories that simply cannot be supported by scripture or by scriptural implication.
Barry[/color]
Barry:
I don't mean to imply that old age assessments don't also have methodological and presuppositional problems. But I do think that young earth creation science folks are engaged in a fallacious project: the proving of their own view by the discrediting of another. That is to say, the posit a particular claim--the earth is 10K-30K years old, say--but instead of using scientific evidence to demonstrate the youngness of the earth, they resort to demonstrating how the old earth folks have flawed methodology or presuppositions in determining the earth's age. But disproving one theory is not proving one's own. That is why this sort of argument is fallacious.
I think one can have a "literal" view of the creation accounts, and still have an old earth view. I do not think that this old earth view necessitates an evolutionary view of human origins, any more than I think it necessitates an evolutionary view of any biological origins. The dating of the earth's age is a separate matter from the mechanism by which life arose on this earth.
The dating of the earth's age is a separate matter from the mechanism by which life arose on this earth.
That is certainly possible, but wouldn't you agree that most who hold to an old earth do so because they have accepted some type of evolutionary theory?
In addition, I read many literal creationist publications and the main focus is certainly not a young earth. The main focus is a literal creation account. The YEC spend quite a bit of time on the young earth issue because that is where most of the attacks seem to come from. In other words, I don't think it is disingenuous for them to try to disprove old earth arguments, even if it does not prove their own.
Barry[/color]
Barry:
I think evolution theory adherents necessarily need an old earth for there to be enough time for the evolutionary processes to work. Whether or not these assumptions affect the mechanisms by which the age of the earth is calculated I cannot speak to. That being said, there is a fairly consistent assessment of the age of the earth, and it is hard to ignore that consensus and the reasons on which it was founded.
I must admit that while I admire the courage of conviction that YECS adherents have, especially in the face of often malicious and withering ridicule and denigration, I really have to confess to not understanding why they think it necessary to wed their convictions about creation to a young earth.
While I think evolutionary theory adherents need an old earth for their theory to be viable, I'm not sure that creation adherents need a young earth for their theory to be viable. The only reason I can see is that they feel they must adhere to a literalist 6-24-hour-day interpretation of the creation accounts, and that by extension, they need to adhere to a literal interpretation of the genealogies. But if one does not need, on biblical grounds, to adhere to the 6-24-hour-day interpretation, then old earth assessments are rendered relatively unproblematic.
But if one does not need, on biblical grounds, to adhere to the 6-24-hour-day interpretation, then old earth assessments are rendered relatively unproblematic.
Perhaps that is where we differ. I can't see any justification in the biblical language for not adhering to a literal 6-24-hour-day interpretation. In fact, if it were not for evolutionary theory I doubt many Christians would have ever thought of anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know that there have been other theories in the past, but none of them became popular until evolution became an accepted theory by the masses.
Barry[/color]
Barry:
Let me clarify a bit. There is only one point in the creation account where it would seem to me necessary to adhere to a literal 24-hour day interpretation: the point at which the sun, moon and stars are created, for these are said to specifically marke the days, seasons and years. Prior to that point, the language of "evening and moring" and "one day" cannot be necessistated to be taken literally since there is nothing in the text up to that point which indicates that these are 24-hour time markers. It seems to me that from the moment of creation, time also came to be, for creation indicates a beginning as demarcated over against a now, and the intervening duration between the beginning and now must be time. But in the first part of the creation account the phrases "evening and moring" and "one day" need not be taken literally for there is no celestial means by which to demarcate evening and morning, or days. That doesn't happen till the creation of the celestial bodies by which they will then demarcate days and seasons and years. So, all these phrases are doing in the first part of the creation account is demarcating the passage of time. They do not indicate precisely how long that time was.
That is certainly possible, but wouldn't you agree that most who hold to an old earth do so because they have accepted some type of evolutionary theory?
I for one don't, and I know others as well. I just can't get around the stellar evidence. Of course, I guess one could have a old universe/young earth perspective.
Ken[/color]
I for one don't, and I know others as well. I just can't get around the stellar evidence. Of course, I guess one could have a old universe/young earth perspective.
Ken, I completely agree. I find the astronomical evidence to be the most compelling.
I wonder why some Christians feel the need to be so committed to a young universe, when scripture doesn't seem to teach or even imply this.
There is the list of genealogies, of course. But they are often incomplete, as can be determined by comparing different scriptural lists of the same family lines. There is no reason to presume that they can be added together (as Bishop Ussher did) and come up with the date of creation.
Do you have any idea where this YE obsession comes from?
Mike
Mike[/color]
Do you have any idea where this YE obsession comes from?
Allowing for gaps in the genealogies, how old do you think the earth is according to the Bible?
In addition, if the earth is billions of years old, as you have stated, are you suggesting that the earth sat empty for those billions of years and at some point God decided to create man/animals/etc... on an already formed planet? If so, how do you interpret Genesis 1:1 which states God created the heavens and the earth at the beginning of the six days?
Barry[/color]
Don't know. How long does a day last if there is no sun or moon? What forces were exerted on the earth's rotation during the early days of creation to determine the length of a day at that point?
Does God ever use symbolic language when referring to periods of time?
Don't know. How long does a day last if there is no sun or moon? What forces were exerted on the earth's rotation during the early days of creation to determine the length of a day at that point?
Does God ever use symbolic language when referring to periods of time?
That's what I always wondered. With no sun and other celestial bodies, right off the bat, we're forced to make assumptions. What determined the "evening", and what determined the "morning" in a day, since there were no sunrises and sunsets, etc.? It just so happens that a day is 24 hours only because that is the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate, or visually speaking, for the sun to rise and set.
Knowing what we now know about the physics of the solar system, etc., there are a ton of unanswered questions. What if a modern scientific explanation were given to the ancient Hebrews 3000 years ago? Would it have made any sense to them? The simple, poetic language in Genesis makes this point... God made it all, and it was good![/color]
Barry:
In addition, if the earth is billions of years old, as you have stated, are you suggesting that the earth sat empty for those billions of years and at some point God decided to create man/animals/etc... on an already formed planet?
Maybe . . . this involves a great deal of speculation. Perhaps there were successive waves of creation, as God worked with his creation as an artist.
The Cambrian fossil strata demonstrate an explosion of new life forms, practically coming on the scene all at once -- perhaps one of the waves of creation? Who knows -- as I said, this is mere speculation.
Maybe God just enjoys the passage of time :;): ::playingguitar::
(which, after all, is another part of his creation).
Mike[/color]
You guys seem to be overlooking the fact that the first thing God created was light with night and day:
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.
Gen 1:3-5 (NLT)
And there is nothing poetic about the language of Genesis 1. It is presented as a historical account.
Barry[/color]
But Mike,
That is not just a little speculation, it is total and complete speculation with no biblical data to back it up or even imply it. There can be no doubt that Genesis 1 is presented as a historical account. If it is not, what do we do with the rest of Genesis? Were Adam and Eve real people, or just symbolic of the human race? If just symbolic, what do we do with all the talk of a literal first Adam in the NT? This brings up all kinds of problems. It is so much easier to just accept the biblical data as accurate.
Barry
Of course it's speculation -- that's what I said!
"Easier" to read Genesis 1 in a fundamentalist way? I guess it depends on what you mean by easy, and what your end point is.
Mike
When did I use the word "fundamentalist?" I am saying that the book of Genesis is presented to us as a literal history. If it is not, what are the ramifications? If you can simply insert billions of years into the text, what else are you willing to change in the historical account? And if we can do this with Genesis, why not do it with every book of the Bible? What hermeneutic allows us to come up with a wholesale rewriting of the biblical text?
Barry
When did I use the word "fundamentalist?" I am saying that the book of Genesis is presented to us as a literal history. If it is not, what are the ramifications? If you can simply insert billions of years into the text, what else are you willing to change in the historical account? And if we can do this with Genesis, why not do it with every book of the Bible? What hermeneutic allows us to come up with a wholesale rewriting of the biblical text?
Barry
:amen:
You never said "fundamentalist" that I am aware of, Barry. That's my description of the view you are espousing. At least to me it seems to be the classic fundamentalist view. I did not mean it as a pejorative term.
Genesis 1 seems to me to be a recasting of the typical Mesopotamian creation myth, one that the original readers would be familiar with. Except that in this retelling, important details about the true God and his relation with creation and special relationship with humanity are taught.
I don't see any reason to have to read it as the same type of historical literary genre as the story of Paul's missionary journeys in Acts.
Just because it is a different type of literature doesn't alter how we have to read other literary genres in the Bible, IMO.
Mike
Mike,
Could you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Genesis is in the same genre as a "typical Mesopotamian creation myth"? I mean, what clues in the Hebrew language would lead you to such a conclusion? Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?
Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Barry
Mike,
Could you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Genesis is in the same genre as a "typical Mesopotamian creation myth"? I mean, what clues in the Hebrew language would lead you to such a conclusion?
It's not my original idea, of course. It has just seemed reasonable to me. And I don't know enough Hebrew to have an intelligent discussion about that part of your question.
Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?
It's possible.
Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Barry
Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
Mike[/color]
Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?
Not only that, but the events actually took place. So they could be based on the actual account, as it was described by Moses, with or without Genesis.
Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Barry
Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
Mike[/color]
It should matter.
Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Barry
Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
Mike
Mike,
I'm sure you're not thinking this one through, but if Adam was not a literal man, the entire New Testament can be flushed down the toilet.
Think of the ramifications if Adam was not a literal man:
*The genealogy of Christ is a myth.
*Paul was lying as he certainly viewed Adam as literal.
*If Paul was mistaken about Adam and Eve, how can we trust anything else he has written?
*There can be no death nor resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22)
*I could easily list 20 or more things here that would make the cross a joke if Adam were not literal.
Do you see why I take this so seriously? Once you start chipping away at the foundation the whole house comes down.
And Mike, I'm a little flabbergasted how you could even seriously consider Genesis to fall into the "myth" category without even considering the biblical language. From what you've posted so far, it sounds like you are putting more trust in science (which has failed us countless times) than in the Word of God (which has never failed us yet).
I am not anti-science, but where science conflicts with the Word of God, I'll go with the Word of God every time.
Barry[/color]
Something else to think about... Is all future prophecy to be taken literally? God reveal some things in vivid imagery that may or may not be literal but sometimes are metaphorical or typological. Just read the prophets in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New Testament.
Prophecy is revelation from God to man. Since no human witnessed the events in Genesis 1, could it not be classified as prophecy... prophecy concerning the past?
DCR,
You've lost me on that one. What in the creation account reminds you of prophetic literature?
Barry
Glad you asked! There are some things in the book of Revelation that take me back to Genesis.
Reflect on the events in the Garden of Eden, and then read passages like this...
Revelation 22
1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
Also, remember how Satan is referred to as a "serpent" in Genesis. Notice where that description makes another appearance in the Bible... Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2.
Just something to think about...
Okay, I see what you mean now. But I don't see how that takes away from a literal creation account. Perhaps that wasn't your point?
For a long time I have viewed heaven as a 'Return to Eden' based on the very passages you are referring to. I'm looking forward to literally partaking of a literal Tree of Life.
(In case anyone wonders, I do lean toward the amil view, but that doesn't mean everything in Revelation is symbolic!).
Barry
My point is that when I read prophecy about the end times and eternity, and when I read prophecy about the beginning times and eternity past, I realize how vast it all is, and how little of it I actually grasp.
Not everything in Revelation is symbolic or metaphorical, but then again, maybe some of it is. I don't rule out the same possibility in the early chapters of Genesis. There is great mystery in the creation. But, God has revealed what He has chosen to reveal and in the ways that He has chosen to reveal.
Something else to consider... I don't know if we fully appreciate all the ways that creation itself was affected by the fall. Remember that it apparently didn't rain before the flood. And, man lived to be a much older age (900+ years) than is physically possibly for a modern man. It seems that some fundamental laws of nature changed. So, all I'm saying is that in early Genesis, all bets are off on our having an complete understanding of the way things worked, how time passed, and how much time passed before the fall.
I believe there is so much we don't know. That's why I'm not taking it for granted that those "days" in Genesis 1 are necessarily exactly what we know as days. Besides, I don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they sinned. Did Adam & Eve's "pre-fall" years count in their age in years at death? Maybe so. But, that would be another assumption.
Speaking of drawing parallels between Revelation and Genesis:
I remembered reading this in Halley's Bible Handbook:
"The Bible is all one story. The last part of the last book in the Bible reads like the close of the story begun in the first part of the first book in the Bible."
The first word in Genesis:
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" (Gen. 1:1)
Almost the last word in Revelation:
"I saw a New Heaven and a New Earth." (Rev.21:1)
"The gathering together of waters He called the sea." (Gen.1:10)
"And the sea is no more.." (Rev 21:1)
"The darkness He called night" (Gen. 1:5)
"There shall be no night there" (Rev 21:25)
"God made the two great lights (sun and moon)" (Gen. 1:16)
"The city has no need of the sun nor the moon" (Rev. 21:23)
"In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17)
"Death shall be no more" (Rev. 21:4)
"I will greatly multiply your pain" (Gen. 3:16)
"Neither shall there be pain anymore" (Rev. 21:4)
"Cursed is the ground for your sake" (Gen. 3:17)
"There shall be no more curse" (Rev. 22:3)
Satan appears as deceiver of mankind (Gen. 3: 1, 4)
Satan disappears forever (Rev. 20:10)
They were driven from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24)
The tree of life reappears (Rev. 22:2)
They were driven from God's presence (Gen. 3:24)
"They shall see His face" (Rev. 22:4)
Man's primeval home was by a river (Gen. 2:10)
Man's eternal home will be beside a river (Rev. 22:1)
*I'm not saying this means both accounts are literal, figurative, or anything. This just came to mind when I read the post above about similarities in the "symbolism" whether it is literal or not.
Interesting, indeed.
:amen:
I wanted to clarify a bit more the interpretation I am proposing regarding Genesis 1-2.
Let's note a couple of things (most of this is reiteration):
1. The sun, moon, stars, etc. were created on the fourth day. It is explicitly stated that these are meant to "rule" (or regulate) the night and the day, to note seasons, days and years, and to divide the night from the day.
2. Prior to the creation of the sun, moon, stars, etc., we do have the following:
*Day 1: creation of light, separation of night from day
*Day 2: creation of the firmament
*Day 3: creation of dry land, seas, vegetation
3. From day one there is the repetitive phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, one day (second day, etc.)."
I have proposed that prior to the fourth day of creation, "day" was not divided into our current 24-hours (or in any sort of present-day understanding of the measurement of the length of a day). I have made that contention based on the fact that the sun, which is how the current measurement of a day is calibrated, was not created until the fourth day. Prior to that time, then, there was no way to calibrate a "24-hour" day. Thus the "days" prior to the fourth day are, it seems plausible to me, of unknown duration. Perhaps they were 24-hour days such as we currently know, but given that our current understanding of the length of a day is based on the earth's rotation vis a vis the sun and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, this is not something, I think, we can be dogmatic about.
Now some will say, "Aha, but whenever yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 'literal' 24-hour day." To which I would reply, "Sure, but all those references are to days in which the earth rotates vis a vis the sun." I would also reply that there is at least one day in Scripture that was not a 24-hour day (think Joshua).
Furthermore, it will likely be said that if we do not assume six (but assume the three I'm proposing) twenty-four hour days that we will somehow not be taking the text literally. This, I think I've demonstrated, is not the case.
I have taken the text quite literally in my interpretation. I have assumed that the world was created by God, because that's what the text says. I have assumed that beginning with the fourth day, "days" in Scripture are the "24-hour" day we now know. But I have also paid attention to the literal meaning of the text regarding the creation of the celestial bodies on the fourth day: it is the first notice we have that these bodies are to divide day and night, to mark days and seasons and years, and so forth. Prior to the fourth day of creation, then, it is plausible to assume that the "day" was of unknown duration.
And on that basis I further infer that it could well have been long enough to account for the old appearance of the cosmos.
Thus, I have presented a literal interpretation of the text that presents a plausible case for the old age of the earth.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
CD,
Your proposal would also cause us to interpret "morning and evening" differently until the sun was created. Do you really see your proposal as a natural reading of the text?
Barry
Barry:
Yes, I do. If "day," based on a close reading of the text itself, can have a flexible meaning, so, too, can "morning" and "evening."
More to the point, however, morning and evening do not designate a specific duration of time, but rather indicate a specific point of time during the day. Also, prior to the creation of the sun, the alteration between morning and evening could not be based on the rotation of the earth vis a vis the sun. Since prior to the creation of the sun there is no connection of morning/evening to a "24-hour" day, then we are free to conclude that the alteration between morning and evening prior to the creation of the sun was of unknown duration.
CD,
I guess I just don't see it at all. Unless there were some linguistic clue, I don't think we can change the interpretation of "day," used in the same story and context. It is hard for me to comprehend that the biblical writer would change gears like that without letting us know.
And then there is the question of why? Of what benefit is it to interpret "day" differently halfway through the creation account?
It would seem much more consistent, and in line with standard hermeneutical principles, to interpret "day" consistently throughout the passage.
Can you think of any other instance in Scripture where a word can have such a radical swing of meaning as what you are proposing here?
Barry
Barry:
I'm not sure how having a "day" of unknown duration from days 1-3 of creation, to a "day" of "24-hour" duration from day 4 to the present is "a radical swing of meaning." And, indeed, there is a linguistic clue tucked away in the fourth day description of the celestial bodies; i.e., that they were to mark days, seasons and years.
If hermeneutical principles demand a consistency that does not take into account all the evidence of the text, then I think we ought to be suspicious of such a hermeneutic. While I recognize that my interpretation is perhaps a bit novel and is at odds with perhaps the majority of creationists, I do think my warrants for my interpretation are better, because they do, in fact, take the text at its word.
What are the benefits?
*It is a literal understanding of the text that takes into account all the data, and thus is respectful of the text and its divinely inspired origins.
*It can be reconciled with the accumulated knowledge/understanding undergirding the current consensus on the age of the earth/universe, and thus is respectful of the use of God-given human reason and intelligence.
One might ask, what are the drawbacks to assuming a six 24-hour day interpretation?
*It first of all can potentially set up a false dichotomy: either accept Scripture or accept the accumulated knowledge/understanding humans, using their God-given reason, have come to about the present age of the earth.
*It can also potentially set up an irrational stance vis a vis the efforts of human scientists to understand the creation God has made, and the general consensus of those scientists about the cosmos.
*It can potentially set up a false bifurcation of truth into that which is inspired and that which is human (and therefore inherently to be suspect).
*It necessitates an understanding of the genealogical data of Scripture that includes gaps of perhaps thousands of years, if the Scriptural interpretion is going to match current scientific understanding.
*It necessitates that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for perhaps thousands and millions of years prior to the Fall, if the Scriptural interpretion is going to match current scientific understanding.
As to other instances of Scripture where a word has different connotations in the same context? Nothing comes immediately to mind.
CD,
The majority of your "drawbacks" are directly related to the contemporary scientific community. As I'm sure you're aware, this leads to all kinds of problems. Why would we only accept their view of "billions of years" and not their view of macro-evolution? Can't you see the slippery slope?
In addition, if we were to use this reasoning down through history our interpretation of Genesis would have to change consistently and often based on the different views of science down through the ages. If a century from now scientists conclude that they have been wrong on the age of the earth, and now believe it is only 10,000 years old, do you have to change your interpretation again?
I see absolutely no problem with interpreting the Genesis creation account as six-literal-24-hour-days and a whole slew of problems with doing otherwise.
Barry
Barry
Frankly, I'm not crazy about any current interpretation of the creation account.
1) Literal 6 day (24 hour period) creation - like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth. In addition, it appears to me, the account don't appear to be a strictly historical narrartive.
2) Creation mythos - this has some appeal to me, but, every time I hear the word "myth" I think of "fake".
3) Day - Age Theory - this just seems to be a half way stop for young earth creationists.
4) Israel Origin Theory - I'm not sure of the proper title for this, but its my favorite. Basically the thought is that the creation accounts are of God creating paradise (heavens and earth) in the area of Israel.
Those are the ones I'm familiar with. Like I said, I'm not crazy about any of the them.
CD,
Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?
Ken
like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth.
Ken,
Have you read any young earth astronomers?
Barry[/color]
That is a good point about the "greater light" (the sun) ruling the "day" starting on day four. That suggests that days 1, 2, and 3, were not "ruled" by the sun.
24 hours is determined by the "rule" of the sun's position in the sky. Only God knows what "ruled" days 1, 2, and 3. I guess He did. :)
Barry:
You raise some important concerns. Let me see if I can address them with something rising to the level of plausibility to you.
The majority of your "drawbacks" are directly related to the contemporary scientific community. As I'm sure you're aware, this leads to all kinds of problems. Why would we only accept their view of "billions of years" and not their view of macro-evolution? Can't you see the slippery slope?
Actually, the drawbacks are not related to the contemporary scientific community except indirectly. They are directly related to a, to me, troublesome lack of appreciation of the gift of reason and its ability to accurately and adequately come to real knowledge of the world God has created.
I can accept the scientific community's views of geological age and reject their views of macroevolution because the former is based on empirical and falsifiable evidence and methodology, while the latter is wholly a metaphysical philosophical speculation.
I grant you that cosmological age and macroevolution are often synthesized, but I do not think they are in any way
essentially related.
Slippery slope arguments are notoriously fallacious . . . most of the time. There is a way to argue a valid slippery slope argument, but to do so, one must establish essential and logically necessary connections between the acceptance of a particular position and the consequences resultant from that position.
My interpretation in no way need be connected to macroevolutionary metaphysical speculation.
In addition, if we were to use this reasoning down through history our interpretation of Genesis would have to change consistently and often based on the different views of science down through the ages. If a century from now scientists conclude that they have been wrong on the age of the earth, and now believe it is only 10,000 years old, do you have to change your interpretation again?
No, I won't, and here's why. My interpretation makes no dogmatic pronouncement on the actual age of the earth. It simply says that Scripture does not give a direct, or even indirect, account of cosomologial age. If scientific consensus changes and ultimately accepts a young-earth creation, my own interpretation need not change one whit.[/color]
Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?
Ken:
I haven't been following the discussion. Can you point me to the comment you have in mind, or reproduce it here?
like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth.
Ken,
Have you read any young earth astronomers?
Barry[/color]
Yes. Though I'm sure there is more out there then I know of, and I don't make it a habit of specifically reading their work.
Ken
Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?
Ken:
I haven't been following the discussion. Can you point me to the comment you have in mind, or reproduce it here?[/color]
Here you go:
That "Seeking 'David'" topic in the Apologetic Forum got me thinking about something related to this topic.
Tidbit[1] made some comments in defense of a young Earth related to having faith in God over faith in scientists. Basically, if there seems to be conflict between the Bible and scientists one will choose the Bible because scientists are always changing their understanding.
However, especially in churches of Christ, I believe this argument to be self-defeating. Churches of Christ make a big deal of interpreting the Bible using the inductive method. The inductive method is nothing more then the scientific method used by scientists to determine the age of the Earth. What this means is the members of churches of Christ use the same method in Bible interpretation that scientists use in interpretation of natural data. Since the accuracy of the method is no greater between the two, the accuracy of interpretation of the Bible is the same as the accuracy of the interpretation of the natural world, this leads to several conclusions:
1) If one claims scientists are always changing what they understand about the world the same goes for church of Christ members of what they understand about he Bible.
2) The interpretations from the natural sciences are of equal weight to interpretations of the Bible.[2]
3) The nature of "faith" in God is of the same order of the nature of "faith" in the scientists. This is especially true in churches of Christ where "faith" if often equated with "belief of facts".
Just thought I'd throw that out there as food for thought.
Ken
**********************************************
[1] Tidbit did say that this was not necessarily his views
[2] Less weight may actually be given to Biblical interpretation using the inductive method simply because the inductive method was not intended to be used in that area, its geared more toward repeated experimentation and large data sets.
Ken:
I think your comments pretty much spot on.
I don't think any particular hermeneutical method is illegitimate, however. I think the primary problem is one of authority: who has the authority to say what the text means?
In this regard, the inductive method, divorced from the life of the Church, is the one particular method most conducive to establishing the "infallible" authority of the individual interpreter.
But then you probably knew I'd say something like that!
Ken:
I think your comments pretty much spot on.
I don't think any particular hermeneutical method is illegitimate, however. I think the primary problem is one of authority: who has the authority to say what the text means?
In this regard, the inductive method, divorced from the life of the Church, is the one particular method most conducive to establishing the "infallible" authority of the individual interpreter.
But then you probably knew I'd say something like that!
Yes. I thought about saying that the Orthodox and Catholic don't have this problem simply because they don't solely rely on the historical critical method to discern God's will. But I didn't want to distract from the basic idea.
Anyway I just find it interesting that, especially in churches of Christ, they will rely on the inductive method to determine God's will from the Bible data but complain that scientists (who use the exact same method) are constantly changing there interpretation of natural data.
Ken
Bumping for Harold. I don't have the mental ability to go into this again, but much has been said on this thread.
This discussion should continue on the thread it started, since I'm not going to particpate now after 16 pages I had no part in.
Just my opinon.
To answer Yes or no is just an opinion since none of us were there. Since He didn't separate day from night until the fourth "day", I have my doubts they were actual 24 hour days. Since a day is as 1,000 years and 1,000 years as a day to God, Can we take the "6 days" literally? I always used to until I realized that time means nothing to an eternal God. He created it for our benefit. I'm not trying to limit God since He could haver caused everything to appear instantly had He wanted.
: Jon-Marc Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 11:55:01
He created it for our benefit.
Okay marc, now you got me involved.
You bring up an incredible point of relevance.
Think about the 7 day week. Where did it come from?
24 hour day, earths rotation. 30 day month, moon phases. 365 day year, earths orbit around the sun. Wheres the 7 day week come from?
Moses wasn't there either. However, he wrote by inspiration from the Spirit of God, and God had him write that He created in six days.
From the time God said, "Light be." each day was specified as being an evening and morning.
In Exodus 20:8-11 God gave commandment to the children of Israel to keep the Sabbath because in six days He made the heavens and the earth and the seventh day He rested.
Between the references in Genesis 1 to the day being composed of evening and morning and the command given in Exodus 20 to rest on the seventh as God did, I don't see any good reason to make the days of creation in Genesis 1 figurative instead of accepting them as 24 hour periods of time.
Although the sun and moon weren't in place from the first day doesn't keep God from knowing the actual amount of time spent and giving that info to Moses to record.
My question is since God could have created it all in the blink of an eye, why did He spend so much time as six days to create?
Or why a flood? Why not just start over instead of a big boat and further difficult explanations as to the diversity of flora and fauna on this earth? (Which is even much less than millions of years over trillians of acres, isolated by water, diverse in climates, etc etc etc.)
: Jon-Marc Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 11:55:01
To answer Yes or no is just an opinion since none of us were there. Since He didn't separate day from night until the fourth "day", I have my doubts they were actual 24 hour days. Since a day is as 1,000 years and 1,000 years as a day to God, Can we take the "6 days" literally? I always used to until I realized that time means nothing to an eternal God. He created it for our benefit. I'm not trying to limit God since He could haver caused everything to appear instantly had He wanted.
Gen 1:4 God saw the light was good. So God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-
the first day. God measured the time for us; we know when to take off the seventh day. In God time, which is outside of time, there is no time. But in our world, and in creation time, a day is a day.
FTL
: soterion Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 12:19:31
Moses wasn't there either. However, he wrote by inspiration from the Spirit of God, and God had him write that He created in six days.
From the time God said, "Light be." each day was specified as being an evening and morning.
In Exodus 20:8-11 God gave commandment to the children of Israel to keep the Sabbath because in six days He made the heavens and the earth and the seventh day He rested.
Between the references in Genesis 1 to the day being composed of evening and morning and the command given in Exodus 20 to rest on the seventh as God did, I don't see any good reason to make the days of creation in Genesis 1 figurative instead of accepting them as 24 hour periods of time.
Although the sun and moon weren't in place from the first day doesn't keep God from knowing the actual amount of time spent and giving that info to Moses to record.
My question is since God could have created it all in the blink of an eye, why did He spend so much time as six days to create?
Exo 20:11 In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
So I could take a nap in the afternoon.
FTL
I really don't care how long God took to go about His business.
If we give up literal Genesis then we give up literal salvation. That is the reason we should defend the faith that is in us.
FTL
: janine Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 16:35:03
I really don't care how long God took to go about His business.
All of Scripture is built upon Genesis 1, the creation account. Without this, the Bible is without foundation.
Its a shame that you dont care.
Thanks, marc.
I was just thinking the same thing yesterday, but I was too lazy to search the archives. ::blushing::
Mike
To be honest I do not know. What I find awesome about Genesis is it is the foundation for the rest of the Bible. What was the first religous act; it happened in Genesis?
: Benoni Sun Aug 05, 2007 - 20:44:49
To be honest I do not know. What I find awesome about Genesis is it is the foundation for the rest of the Bible. What was the first religous act; it happened in Genesis?
I don't understand the question.
I see in Genesis spiritual symbolism; the foundation for the rest of the Bible.
First of that which is spiritual is far more relevant, real and higher then that which is flesh or carnal; so what ever our body will be it will be much more then are body is now. Something's that are in the scriptural are hidden or a mystery (Gk sacred secret) used 27 times in NT.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (KJV)
In the garden before the fall God covered Adam and Eve with His glory; they lost that glory when they sinned. So what did they do they looked for another covering to replace that nakedness. Adam and Eve covered their nakedness with something other then the Glory of God. Clothing always speaks of our beliefs and understanding. In the OT the Levitical Priest could not wear wool. Wool speaks of sweat, or works; there are many examples thought out the Bible to prove this pattern.
Matt 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
My point is this the fig leaf is symbolic of a covering other then God; religion.
Adam and Eve walked in the garden and found them selves naked. Before that nakedness they walked and talked with God, ate forbidden fruit and named all the animals.
Adam and Eve were both...NAKED! Among all the creatures which God made, man stands out unique...stark naked...which means devoid of true wisdom and knowledge, with his inner nature revealed, opened up, exhibited, and made bare. Oh, that God may give us understanding to see that to be naked means to have THE FLESH UNCOVERED AND EXPOSED! In the typology of scripture "the flesh" is the name by which the Holy Spirit designates our outer life of soul and body, our earthly and carnal human nature, literally speaking of that nature which is earthly minded, with its lusts and self-centeredness, its ego and I-will which are in rebellion to the spirit. Thus, the flesh is not the outward, visible man of meat, muscle, and bones, but the nature of the soulical and bodily man.
This nature was in man from the beginning, else Eve (who was of the man) could not have been tempted, nor could they have sinned! This nature could be seen to be in them from the time God lowered them out of their pure spirit existence, in the image and likeness of God, investing them with a body of earth so that man became a living soul. But as long as man was caught up in God he was not aware of it — for he was naked and was not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Have we not all experienced the same thing?
In seasons when we are caught up in the Spirit of God, flooded with His presence, sin is far from our minds. It is easy to be holy standing in the ecstasy of God's glory! The flesh nature is still there, but in that blessed moment we are not ashamed, for we are unaware.
Pro. 29: 18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (KJV)
6544 para` (paw-rah');
a primitive root; to loosen; by implication, to expose, dismiss; figuratively, absolve, begin:
KJV-- avenge, avoid, bare, go back, let, (make) naked, set at nought, perish, refuse, uncover.
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 08:52:42
My point is this the fig leaf is symbolic of a covering other then God; religion.
The fig leafs were a literal, something used to hide their sin.
I think your importing religion into this passage and such a figurative approach to Genesis will only lead to misinterpretation. Not only there, but elsewhere in the Bible.
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 08:52:42Adam and Eve walked in the garden and found them selves naked. Before that nakedness they walked and talked with God, ate forbidden fruit and named all the animals.
I don't understand what you mean here, are you suggesting that they were allowed to eat from the tree of good and evil before they fell?
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 08:52:42Something's that are in the scriptural are hidden or a mystery (Gk sacred secret) used 27 times in NT.
You should be very careful of this line of thinking, since this is a road that has led many to perdition.
God is a Spirit; you can literalize all the Bible you want to; but all you will get is the out hull; the chaff.
Prov 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to
search out a matter.
God's people are like the Jews in Jesus time they believe there are no mysteries; nothing hidden; its all literal? (mystery 27 times in NT); well if this is true then lets throw the whole Bible out and close our eyes to the deep things of God. God is a deep and awesome God and so is His Word; your eyes may see the literal; but God's Word is a mystery and it is hidden and is deep and it flows like a river; not a broken cistern.
Jeremiah 2:13
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can
hold no water.
Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;
The apostle Paul, speaking of the whole armor of God, admonishes the
saints to "put on...the sword of the Spirit, WHICH IS THE WORD OF GOD"
(Eph. 6:17). Then the writer to the Hebrews declares that the sword of
God's word is "QUICK." Quick means living and active — LIFE-GIVING! "For
the word of God that speaks is alive and full of power — making it
active, operative, energizing and effective; it is sharper than any
two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12, Amplified). Ah, yes, here is the sword that
conquers the death in us and GIVES LIFE! As it is written, "It is the
spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing...for the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life!" (Jn. 6:63; II Cor. 3:6). The sword
of the Spirit is the quickening, energizing, life-giving WORD OF GOD!
I shall not hesitate to explain to you, that there are two aspects of the Word
of God. Jesus Christ is the Word — the Logos —
THE LIVING, CREATIVE WORD! But there is also that word which Paul calls "the
letter." The letter is the outer hull, the record and history, the laws
and commandments, the rules and regulations, the types, shadows and
figures, the external ordinances, rituals, ceremonies, and feasts; the
visible form of the word which tells us, in terms understandable by the
natural mind, many things about the Living Word, Jesus Christ. As I
meditated upon the Cherubim and the flaming sword in Genesis, the Spirit
spoke within me, saying, "The flaming sword is a word!" Then in a sudden
burst of divine illumination the truth of it dawned powerfully upon me.
Christ is the Word, the Living Word, and IN HIM IS LIFE! But the flaming
sword at the portal of Eden is a word, not the Word, not the living Word,
but the form of the Word, that is, A WORD about THE WORD!
There is a lot more to the Bible then literal there are types, patterns, mysteries, shadows, parables, allegories etc. But the Bible uses these literal things to point to the things of the spirit. If all it takes to be spiritual is to go to church every Sunday and follow all the rules and regulations then we would have a very spiritual harmonious church system out there. If the New Testament has any thing to say the it uses the word hear 128 times. This does not mean with natural ears that hang on the side of your head. But how can a natural man hear God if he rejects everything spiritual
Benoni,
There is a reason I warn you of this path, because the secret things belong to God; thats why they are secret.
Deu 29:29
The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
God reveals his secrets to his chosen.
Mat 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
If God wants your to know something it is revealed in his Word, not by private interpretation. The Scripture is Gods full and perfect revelation, and there is no revelation outside of Scriptures.
If you are seeking secret wisdom, or mystic knowledge through a symbolic understanding of Scripture, I again would warn you of the path because it ultimately leads to gnosticism.
CSloan
You are right it is not a matter of private interpretation nor should it be a matter of a religious interpretation; that is what the Spirit of Truths job is to lead and guide us into all truth not some religion. Religious man is against any new revelation or anointing; because they limit God to the literal, the religious. Anti Christ or anti anointing it means the same thing.
Symbolism is as much in understanding scripture as the parable Jesus spoke to; Revelations. When I hear the lamb of God I do not think that Jesus is a baby sheep eating grass in some farmers pasture; nor if I read my sheep know my voice do I believe God has a bunch of full grown sheep that have human ears. No a sheep is a full grown mature willing vessel, a lamb is pure and without blemish. Please do not reject symbolism because it does not fit your old wine skin. God's Word is a hidden Word you seem to agreed but where we part is that you believe I deceived. Take manna both in the NT and the OT which is a symbolism that points to how we should receive God's Word. Remember the OT conceals Christ where the NT reveals Chrsit.
Hidden Manna
Revelation 2:17
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Gk) outcalled/assembles). To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.
1 Corin 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.
This chapter in the New Testament shows us that God uses both His Old and New Testament for our admonition and King James inserted the word "World
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 16:01:29Please do not reject symbolism because it does not fit your old wine skin. God's Word is a hidden Word you seem to agreed but where we part is that you believe I deceived.
I never suggested I reject symbolism, but I don't import things into the text that aren't there. Like personal prejudices and biases against religion. And I never said you were deceived, go back an carefully reread my posts; you will find no such accusation.
I simply warned you about private interpretation, and reading things into the text. A practice that has dire consequences.
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 16:01:29It takes more then God's Word to understand the scriptures it takes His spirit also
1Jo 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
I have no problem with religion; God uses them all in limited ways; God's people depend on religion and limit their understanding to there dogmas and creeds.
Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the
earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 16:35:53
I have no problem with religion; God uses them all in limited ways; God's people depend on religion and limit their understanding to there dogmas and creeds.
Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the
earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
I think its apparent you have a problem with "religion" since you just equated it with Revelation 17:5, but I would be curious to know more about what falls under this umbrella of "religion" in your eyes.
Can you please specify as to what this "religion" is you kept referring to in your posts?
All religions
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 16:48:09
All religions
Thats not very specific.
I even said please...
There is a true Church with in us all without spot of wrinkle. Then there is a false church made of man made dogmas, creeds that limit God to their carnal human religious understanding in other words Baby lon (note spelling (joke) with a little message)
Jeremiah 2:13
"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.
What is a cistern but four hard walls that hold water/water is symbolic of God's Word. We cannot contain God's Word in a box; we must let it flow like a river. We have before us the most awesome life given expression of God right in front of us. What do people do with it; they put it in a little social box called religion. So much of God's deepness is not revealed to us for this very reason. God is Spirit; not a brain; His Word is a hidden Word the deeper you go.
I prefer the Webster definition: Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re•li•gion•less adjective
: zoonance Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 12:43:08
Or why a flood? Why not just start over instead of a big boat and further difficult explanations as to the diversity of flora and fauna on this earth? (Which is even much less than millions of years over trillians of acres, isolated by water, diverse in climates, etc etc etc.)
Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hostile toward each other. I will make your descendants and her descendant hostile toward each other. He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."
Heb 6:18 God did this so that we would be encouraged. God cannot lie when he takes an oath or makes a promise. These two things can never be changed. Those of us who have taken refuge in him hold on to the confidence we have been given.
The promise was already given.
FTL
: CSloan Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 21:14:30
: janine Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 16:35:03
I really don't care how long God took to go about His business.
All of Scripture is built upon Genesis 1, the creation account. Without this, the Bible is without foundation.
Its a shame that you dont care.
Allow me to rephrase.
I wasn't there. No one I know was there. No one who took quill in hand to write down God-words on the original papyrii and parchments and leathers was there.
Because of the reiteration of the story of Origins and because arguments can be made that "figurative" does
not mean "false", I maintain an open mind to the
fact that you, I, anyone, could possibly maybe just maybe not have absorbed ALL of God's truth yet, as regards historical details.
For all those reasons and probably a long and boring list of several more, I don't care that I do not know how God numbered hours and days as He created all that is.
I also don't care that there are folks who think they do know.
On both sides of the fence.
If my beginnings of understanding about the topic prove to be off-course, and when I die I find out that God set His creation up as some sort of
process, something Darwin might have designed if he were God --
And when I get to Heaven I find out that my cousin the gorilla and my cousin the orangutan have a place there --
("I've got a maaaan-sion, just up in the tree-top..." --
Then, lovely. I will live in the house of my Lord forever with my hairy cousins.
If my beginnings of understanding about the topic prove to be on-course, and when I die I find out that a lot of stuff in Scripture people took as figurative was a lot more literal than people thought --
Then, lovely. I will live in the house of my Lord forever with my astonished evolutionist Christian brethren.
That's what I mean by, "I don't care".
I love christians make out how spiritual principles are somehow not real and imaginary; by their very words the literal is more real then the spiritual. I praise God that God is not so shallow and carnal. God is a spirit that does by no means make Him an imaginary creature; what it should show us that which is literal is but the outer shell, the chaff. Jesus said the well was deep; he was speaking about a natural well with real water; BUT it pointed to a deep spiritual well that flows from deep with in.
When Adam fell from God's grace in The Garden of Eden; He fell from a place of grace and became as a beast or flesh (same as the Beast or it's mark in Book of Revelations). Adam was a son of God; just like Jesus who is the second Adam. Religion looks for answers everywhere they can find them, be it the natural world, human history or tradition. The answer to the Bible is the Bible; just got to let the Spirit of Truth open the mystery; then it is no longer a mystery.
I might add, the word breath or cool; same word as in Genesis 3:8 according to Strong's
OT:7307: ruwach (roo'-akh); from OT:7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):
Genesis 3: 8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool (or spirit of the day)of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 17:03:10
There is a true Church with in us all without spot of wrinkle.
Can you explain more of what you mean "There is a true church within us all..."?
I love Jeremiah 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
We have lost our first love and have turned to another other then God's anointing within (anti anointing/anti Christ same thing). This is where the true Church is it is not made up of man made creed dogmas and 20,000 denominational systems; it is simply Christ with in us the hope of glory. Today men follow Popes and preacher and ministry not because we are touching the hem of His garment but because it is what we been taught. If you are Roman Catholic (Baptist/Pentecostal/Mormon/etc) because your Father was Roman Catholic, you're Grand Father or what ever. Or maybe you have actually heard God's voice and are walking in the abode he showed you; but there is always more, it gets deeper and wider. In my Fathers house are many mansions; or Greek abiding place. So do you brother have a different abiding place then all of us. My place is not to condemn that abiding place but to seek, ask and knock to know God in a deeper abiding place that I am now.
God has a deep hidden awesome Word that men just like the Jews in Jesus time cannot receive because it does not fit in their old worn out wine skins. I have been in a number of FORUM and be honest with you I cannot speak truth here because I would be banned. Banned because the God's Word cuts though all those broken cistern that can hold no water. Banned because what is more important to religion is to defend their turf and bias. How can anyone believe they can control God's Word because they have a certain truth; sure if they put up barriers and let nothing in they might control it for a season; but those walls are tumbling down as I speak. I had a Christian just tell me the other day there has been no new revelation sense the third century; the whole Bible is so pregnant with hidden truth, hidden mysteries and most of God's people are so blinded by their religion and have only religious eyes and are babes spiritually speaking.
John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (KJV)
The outward religions will always be flawed; it is the Christ with in where there we will find the church without spot or wrinkle
: Benoni Tue Aug 07, 2007 - 12:01:52it is the Christ with in where there we will find the church without spot or wrinkle
I read and reread your post a couple time, and this is the closest statement that could resemble an answer to the question I asked. But we all know that the church is found in Christ, thats not what I asked:
: Benoni Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 17:03:10
There is a true Church with in us all without spot of wrinkle.
What does that mean that "There is a true church within us all..."?
: Harold Mon Aug 06, 2007 - 17:19:45
: zoonance Sat Aug 04, 2007 - 12:43:08
Or why a flood? Why not just start over instead of a big boat and further difficult explanations as to the diversity of flora and fauna on this earth? (Which is even much less than millions of years over trillians of acres, isolated by water, diverse in climates, etc etc etc.)
Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hostile toward each other. I will make your descendants and her descendant hostile toward each other. He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."
Heb 6:18 God did this so that we would be encouraged. God cannot lie when he takes an oath or makes a promise. These two things can never be changed. Those of us who have taken refuge in him hold on to the confidence we have been given.
The promise was already given.
FTL
But why a flood and not a virus with 8 chosen immune individuals? I don't mean that I need to question why God does/did what he does/did. But he left me with a brain and an ability to measure reality. In any other realm, the literal aspects of Genesis would be rejected. Only by adding faith does my mind have to be thrown out of the bath water. Even naming all the animals in a day looking for an acceptable mate (all of them were male and female, why not humans??????????) Then the flood with ALL the animals? and their food? (even if one has to make up how God did it - ie. He made them physiologically unneeding of food for over a year. The numbers don't work. Neither does forcing only baby dinosaurs on board explanation. I am not convinced that science and reality took a back seat. I don't claim to know either! But "I believe the literal aspects of Genesis because the rest of scripture rests on it" is not as solid ground as I would like to stand on. It demands I either chunk my brain out the window or attempt to make up scenarios that are equally devoid of reality in order to "prove" it means just what it says. I confess, claiming that Genesis doesn't mean what it says is uncomfortable and fair game for accusations, but the same head that tries to grasp that God became man et al does not need to force stories in order to surrender to faith. Even in a 6,000 year old planet, Mt. Ararat isn't a catapult big enough to cover the earth again in such a short time nor is it a big enough vacuum to suck every species toward it fast enough. Goes back to "why a boat?" That's His business. Using my brain - What else is a guy supposed to do? If truth is truth, then an explanation shouldn't be all that difficult!
: zoonance Tue Aug 07, 2007 - 12:23:16But why a flood and not a virus with 8 chosen immune individuals?
I think that God choose the flood to demonstrate his hatred for sin, and judgment upon the entire earth. I also think this is a picture of what is to come in final judgement.
The evidence for the flood, massive fossil grave yards, visible destruction to the earth is a witness to just how serious sin is in the eyes of God. Nothing was exempt from the effects of the flood. Animals, people, birds, insects all felt the wrath of God without mercy.
If anything, this should serve as a warning.
Theologic meanings are not hard to miss. Evidence - both for and against - either supports or detracts from a conclusion. The evidence used and the evidence debunked are not likely to demonstrate the truth as long as the seeker picks and chooses the evidence that moves toward what the conclusion has to be. I do think it is fair to allow the intellect the opportunity to praise the giver of intellect by engaging it. Not as a "god" but as a member of the body we are encouraged to use when dealing with knowledge and wisdom.
: janineI wasn't there. No one I know was there. No one who took quill in hand to write down God-words on the original papyrii and parchments and leathers was there.
You do know Jesus, and He said in the beginning they were made male and female. Since He is the creator I would assume he knows.
: zooBut why a flood and not a virus with 8 chosen immune individuals?
Just think of the stink, water buried all, or most of the dead things. How many animals do you think were on the ark, we only need two of each kind. 2dogs, 2cows, and .......etc. Check out
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.aspFTL
Hearing what God's Spirit is speaking and not what man and His religion has spoken
: Harold Tue Aug 07, 2007 - 13:07:08
: janineI wasn't there. No one I know was there. No one who took quill in hand to write down God-words on the original papyrii and parchments and leathers was there.
You do know Jesus, and He said in the beginning they were made male and female. Since He is the creator I would assume he knows.
: zooBut why a flood and not a virus with 8 chosen immune individuals?
Just think of the stink, water buried all, or most of the dead things. How many animals do you think were on the ark, we only need two of each kind. 2dogs, 2cows, and .......etc. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
FTL
2 tigers, 2 wombats, 2 dodo birds, two black spotted newts, two japanese newts, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 leopard tortoises, 2 hingedback tortoises, 2 mud turtles, 2 red eared sliders, 2...
One can argue subspecies (with a rapid 'evolution' to explain the adaptations - if no evolutionary genetic fine adjustments, then kind begetting kind would strictly demand 2 of EVERY living thing or they would either be lost or they shouldn't be here today a measly couple of thousand years later) but not only would one have to explain genetic distinctions as well as adaptations (thick white fur in the artic as opposed to thin hair in the south - genetically, kind begatting kind and all) Nor can one not put them on a distant island on the opposite ends of Ararat. I did not look up answers in genesis this evening but I am aware of their attempts at explaining the evidence - both pro and con.
: zoonance Tue Aug 07, 2007 - 17:40:20
: Harold Tue Aug 07, 2007 - 13:07:08
: janineI wasn't there. No one I know was there. No one who took quill in hand to write down God-words on the original papyrii and parchments and leathers was there.
You do know Jesus, and He said in the beginning they were made male and female. Since He is the creator I would assume he knows.
: zooBut why a flood and not a virus with 8 chosen immune individuals?
Just think of the stink, water buried all, or most of the dead things. How many animals do you think were on the ark, we only need two of each kind. 2dogs, 2cows, and .......etc. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
FTL
2 tigers, 2 wombats, 2 dodo birds, two black spotted newts, two japanese newts, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 leopard tortoises, 2 hingedback tortoises, 2 mud turtles, 2 red eared sliders, 2...
One can argue subspecies (with a rapid 'evolution' to explain the adaptations - if no evolutionary genetic fine adjustments, then kind begetting kind would strictly demand 2 of EVERY living thing or they would either be lost or they shouldn't be here today a measly couple of thousand years later) but not only would one have to explain genetic distinctions as well as adaptations (thick white fur in the artic as opposed to thin hair in the south - genetically, kind begatting kind and all) Nor can one not put them on a distant island on the opposite ends of Ararat. I did not look up answers in genesis this evening but I am aware of their attempts at explaining the evidence - both pro and con.
Diversity in kind is a common event, diversity across kinds is a non event. They only needed two newts to start with. Once land locked they adapt to their environment, and it does not take very long.
FTL
who says?
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
The answer would depend on who you talk to.
The evolutionist would say millions of years, the young earth creationist would say 4400 years dating to the flood.
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
Dog breeds are not genetically distinct. They simply express their DNA in distinct packages. Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep. And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean! And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug. Otherwise you have a cross. Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 17:30:12
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
Dog breeds are not genetically distinct. They simply express their DNA in distinct packages. Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep. And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean! And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug. Otherwise you have a cross. Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.
If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?
FTL
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 18:11:45
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 17:30:12
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
Dog breeds are not genetically distinct. They simply express their DNA in distinct packages. Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep. And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean! And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug. Otherwise you have a cross. Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.
If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?
FTL
Maybe frozen dogs. ::smile::
It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.
: rick6886 Thu Feb 24, 2005 - 20:36:47
Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.
For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
I'd have to say "nope" ::juggle:: ... here's why:
2 Peter 3
(New International Reader's Version)
8 Dear friends, here is one thing you must not forget. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years. And a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow to keep his promise. He is not slow in the way some people understand it. He is patient with you. He doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins.
Psalm 90:3-5
(New Living Translation)
YOU turn people back to dust, saying,
"Return to dust, you mortals!
Gracious,
How do you get 1,000 years out of "...and there was evening and there was morning, one day"? Also, what do you do with Exodus 20:11? Do you define the days of creation as being 1,000 years each?
I am afraid you are confusing figurative language with literal.
: mike Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 21:13:50
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 18:11:45
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 17:30:12
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
Dog breeds are not genetically distinct. They simply express their DNA in distinct packages. Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep. And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean! And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug. Otherwise you have a cross. Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.
If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?
FTL
Maybe frozen dogs. ::smile::
It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.
And my grandkids will turn black if we move to africa.
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:19:20
And my grandkids will turn black if we move to africa.
So what is evolutions answer for ethnic diversity, some "races" aren't as evolved as others?
interpretations are products of the biases. God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed. If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored. Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package. They simply don't always match up! Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How? Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess. We need not provide these individuals with evidence. No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed. But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!" I am not an evolutionist by the way. But I am not blind either.
: mike Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 21:13:50
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 18:11:45
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 17:30:12
: Harold Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 15:09:52
: zoonance Wed Aug 08, 2007 - 12:29:17
who says?
Where is a cross kind?
How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?
FTL
Dog breeds are not genetically distinct. They simply express their DNA in distinct packages. Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep. And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean! And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug. Otherwise you have a cross. Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.
If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?
FTL
Maybe frozen dogs. ::smile::
It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.
How many generations of peppered moths have we observed?
No,(Not Lamarkian) but survival of the best adapted.
And my grandkids will turn black if we move to Africa.
I would think if isolated for 150 years your great, great, great, grand children may see an adaptation of survival of the fittest.
FTL
That is part of the problem. The use of "I would think...." instead of "I have observed..." (I in no way mean to be anything but equally honest. Forgive me if anything I say sounds...inappropriate or unkind to a brother in Christ!)
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:49:38
Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How?
Could it be possible that all the genetic diversity existed in the first man and woman, and through the ages we have all the diversity shown in the children of men.
This might seem like a washed out answer, but sometimes the most obvious conclusion is correct.
That can not be argued. Well, it probably could be and might even be eventually by someone! But for now, since I am not a geneticist, let us rest in our adamic DNA.
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 13:02:37
That is part of the problem. The use of "I would think...." instead of "I have observed..." (I in no way mean to be anything but equally honest. Forgive me if anything I say sounds...inappropriate or unkind to a brother in Christ!)
I did not in any way take it as unkind, you are correct we have not observed. We must depend on others that have to form our opinion.
FTL
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 17:21:11
That can not be argued. Well, it probably could be and might even be eventually by someone!
Already has.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp
Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.
Exo 20:11 In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.
If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?
FTL
The Bible says "days". ::reading::
Genesis 1:4 ...and there was evening and there was morning; the first day.
Hmmmm. I wonder what that means. ::pondering::
: jb728b Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 13:56:00
The Bible says "days". ::reading::
Genesis 1:4 ...and there was evening and there was morning; the first day.
Hmmmm. I wonder what that means. ::pondering::
Lexicon Results for yowm (Strong's H3117)
Hebrew for H3117 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H03117&Version=kjv)
יום
Transliteration
yowm
Pronunciation
yome (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from an unused root meaning to be hot
TWOT Reference
852
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) day, time, yeara) day (as opposed to night)b) day (24 hour period)1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:49:38
interpretations are products of the biases. God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed. If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored. Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package. They simply don't always match up! Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How? Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess. We need not provide these individuals with evidence. No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed. But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!" I am not an evolutionist by the way. But I am not blind either.
Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.
They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.
: Harold Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 13:31:16
Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.
Exo 20:11 In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.
If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?
FTL
Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (
yom) to make Heaven and Earth...
So how could the original statement be true?
: normfromga Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 15:16:23
: Harold Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 13:31:16
Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.
Exo 20:11 In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.
If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?
FTL
Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (yom) to make Heaven and Earth...
So how could the original statement be true?
And all that is in them. Five more days.
FTL
: normfromga Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 14:03:26
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:49:38
interpretations are products of the biases. God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed. If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored. Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package. They simply don't always match up! Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How? Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess. We need not provide these individuals with evidence. No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed. But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!" I am not an evolutionist by the way. But I am not blind either.
Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.
They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.
No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood. So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype. It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true. Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....
: normfromga Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 15:16:23Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (yom) to make Heaven and Earth...
So how could the original statement be true?
Look at the passage closely:
Gen 2:4-5
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, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. The complete sentence includes the plants and herbs of the field before they grew. If you take 2:4 away from 2:5, sure it doesn't make sense. Context is crucial to understand the complete what the passage is leading to.
This is an recount of the creation from Genesis 1:1, detailing the creation of man and the specific events
in the garden. Some would go as far to say Genesis 2 is a second or separate creation record, but that is just erroneous looking at chapter 1 and chapter 2 together.
: zoonance Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 17:22:00
: normfromga Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 14:03:26
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:49:38
interpretations are products of the biases. God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed. If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored. Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package. They simply don't always match up! Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How? Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess. We need not provide these individuals with evidence. No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed. But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!" I am not an evolutionist by the way. But I am not blind either.
Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.
They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.
No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood. So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype. It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true. Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....
Can you find one observance of a net gain in genetic information from one type to another type? Like T-Rex to parakeet.
FTL
: Harold Sat Aug 11, 2007 - 13:26:07
: zoonance Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 17:22:00
: normfromga Fri Aug 10, 2007 - 14:03:26
: zoonance Thu Aug 09, 2007 - 12:49:38
interpretations are products of the biases. God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed. If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored. Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package. They simply don't always match up! Ethnic diversity exists. Why and How? Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess. We need not provide these individuals with evidence. No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed. But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!" I am not an evolutionist by the way. But I am not blind either.
Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.
They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.
No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood. So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype. It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true. Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....
Can you find one observance of a net gain in genetic information from one type to another type? Like T-Rex to parakeet.
FTL
If that never happened (viruses basically exist because they add themselves to their host DNA! - a gain in higher animals typically leads to disease) then 2 of EVERYTHING had to be on the boat. Even a fantastical explanation doesn't allow for that. Nor does it explain how they got redispersed. I don't have all the answers, but the answers given most of the time in opposition will do no justice to "professing to being wise, they became fools." Round is not square and black is not white. Explaining and describing the material world what is in front of us can be challenging. To force the process through a scriptural prism will likely distort rather than clarify. Our kids (not necessarily a good thing!) will be given a choice - It may start out trying to mesh what "the preacher says" and what "the scientists say" but it may end with such a intellectual mess that sides are chosen. Again, I don't have the answers, but uninformed scientists attempts at theology are likely to be as confusing as uninformed christians are at creation apologetics. "The Bible says it and that is good enough for me!" seems to work better when confronting scientific obstacles than it does in finding unity in the body amongst ourselves. The details may elude us for a long time or the KEY may be just around the corner that allows the truth of scripture explain the truth of observations. Hope this all makes some sense.
But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.
There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.
FTL
: Gary Fri Feb 25, 2005 - 07:45:50
The evidence relies upon mathematical assumptions and models which cannot be verified to be 100% accurate.
Because the rate of exponential decay of Carbon 14 follows a certain pattern for awhile, does not mean that all elements follow this particular model. Also, Carbon 14 is only valid in situations less than 50,000 years. A whole host of other dating methods are being used for things assumed to be of different ages.
It is very possible that current dating methods are not correct.
I'ts not only possible, it's probable which is precisely why scientists are always trying to improve their dating methods. And since they don't understand God's awesome power, then of course, God creating the universe in 6 days seems impossible to them. But what Satan tells us is true is actually false and what he tells is false is actually true. ::smile::
: Harold Tue Aug 14, 2007 - 13:31:29
But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.
There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.
FTL
Then there had to be 2 of each (Plus more of each of the "clean" stuff - the humans were at least expected to eat/sacrifice?), plants and animals, feed stuff etc..... We feed so much here at our small zoo in a year and we only have about 500 or so species represented here. If observations and thought count for anything in religious dialogue, then the same mind and processes are to be utilized in experiential dialogue. Making the ark a floating miniearth to save that which took 2 days to make with the expectation of filling the niches as yet still underwater can only mean that some details are missing or our favorite artist is Don Henley with his song "Lying Eyes" Do the math. Somebody's conclusions don't add up. IF the flood was regional and not the entire planet, maybe aspects of the story could be explained, albeit with stark, confusing questions left unanswered. Answers in Genesis is at least giving it a shot - probably more to give christians some comfort rather than a seriously credible alternative to scientific observations and common sense. One has to readily admit that there are certainly goofy, unbelievable conclusions made from a godless agenda and deserving of alternative explanations!
Even the tower of babel requires faith as an explanation of why so many languages exist. (Go on a mission trip. Lots of building takes place with hand gestures and stick figures without having a clue what the other guy is saying.) But this biblical account is far easier to run through a prism than to pluck out our eyes that can see and pith our minds that can observe.
: zoonance Tue Aug 14, 2007 - 15:46:07
: Harold Tue Aug 14, 2007 - 13:31:29
But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.
There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.
FTL
Then there had to be 2 of each (Plus more of each of the "clean" stuff - the humans were at least expected to eat/sacrifice?), plants and animals, feed stuff etc..... We feed so much here at our small zoo in a year and we only have about 500 or so species represented here. If observations and thought count for anything in religious dialogue, then the same mind and processes are to be utilized in experiential dialogue. Making the ark a floating miniearth to save that which took 2 days to make with the expectation of filling the niches as yet still underwater can only mean that some details are missing or our favorite artist is Don Henley with his song "Lying Eyes" Do the math. Somebody's conclusions don't add up. IF the flood was regional and not the entire planet, maybe aspects of the story could be explained, albeit with stark, confusing questions left unanswered. Answers in Genesis is at least giving it a shot - probably more to give christians some comfort rather than a seriously credible alternative to scientific observations and common sense. One has to readily admit that there are certainly goofy, unbelievable conclusions made from a godless agenda and deserving of alternative explanations!
Even the tower of babel requires faith as an explanation of why so many languages exist. (Go on a mission trip. Lots of building takes place with hand gestures and stick figures without having a clue what the other guy is saying.) But this biblical account is far easier to run through a prism than to pluck out our eyes that can see and pith our minds that can observe.
If there was a world wide flood what would we expect to find?
Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.
What do we find?
Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.
Roughly 16K kinds would represent what we see today, that leaves more than enough room for all the animals. None of them ate meat until they came off the ark. So the immense amount of space on the ark would store food for how many juvenile animals? Go visit a place where they unload cargo from a ship and you tell me?
FTL
I agree that preachers are not qualified to pronounce judgment on science. Nor are most even prepared to to pick out the eternal principles from the figurative lauguage. I heard all of my life that Jesus used parables to make truth easy for we simple minded people. I had to learn for myself that Jesus said just the opposite. When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.
A parable is a "superior form of speech." Jesus in fact said that it was to keep the wise from understanding. By definition of the word, a parable can be like a "preacher's" story. When Jesus was asked why He spoke to the masses using parables--which even they did not understand -- He said:
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew 13:13
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Matthew 13:14
For this peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:15
Later:
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Matthew 13:34
Multitudes is: Ochlos (g3793) okh'-los; from a der. of 2192 (mean. a vehicle);
a throng (as borne along); by impl. the rabble; by extens. a class of people;
fig. a riot: - company, multitude, number (of people), people, press.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which
have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Matthew.13:35
they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.
If the Bible is not true in Genesis it is not true in Revelation.
FTL
: blituri Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 19:38:56When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.
They will never "discover" that, they will be indoctrinated with it by secular humanists.
Starlight and the lightyear theory, along with every other old earth theory is based on assumptions.
Genesis accurately records the age of creation through genealogies, from creation. Without evolutionary assumptions, determining the age of the earth scientifically would result in a figure very closely releated to that recorded in Genesis.
: CSloan Sat Aug 18, 2007 - 11:52:38
: blituri Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 19:38:56When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.
They will never "discover" that, they will be indoctrinated with it by secular humanists.
Starlight and the lightyear theory, along with every other old earth theory is based on assumptions.
Genesis accurately records the age of creation through genealogies, from creation. Without evolutionary assumptions, determining the age of the earth scientifically would result in a figure very closely releated to that recorded in Genesis.
CSloan,
Surely you know that the genealogies listed in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Bible) are incomplete. They are summaries, and it was common practice to skip less important individuals to come up with a significant number of generations, like Matthew did in his gospel.
Don't make the mistake of applying modern standards of scientific accuracy to an ancient text, which the authors never intended.
: Harold Sat Aug 18, 2007 - 11:42:31
they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.
If the Bible is not true in Genesis it is not true in Revelation.
FTL
And conversely...
If the six-days Creation is literal in Genesis, then the 1000-years reign is literal in Revelation...
I would say yeah it probly is true. It sure would be cool to see.
FTL
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
: D Cunningham Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:06:40
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
I think you are correct about the weight of evidence demonstating an earth that is billions of years old. Hoever, I do not believe that the Bible actually suggests that the earth is much younger. People have just read their bias back into the text.
: D Cunningham Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:06:40
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.
FTL
: mike Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:15:43
: D Cunningham Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:06:40
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
I think you are correct about the weight of evidence demonstating an earth that is billions of years old. Hoever, I do not believe that the Bible actually suggests that the earth is much younger. People have just read their bias back into the text.
Could you be doing the same?
: mike Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:58:34
CSloan,
Surely you know that the genealogies listed in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Bible) are incomplete. They are summaries, and it was common practice to skip less important individuals to come up with a significant number of generations, like Matthew did in his gospel.
Don't make the mistake of applying modern standards of scientific accuracy to an ancient text, which the authors never intended.
They may not have been intended for this purpose, but then they still serve it quite well.
: Harold Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 13:14:12
: D Cunningham Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:06:40
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.
FTL
I hope I mistook any inference that only an Evolutionist would doubt a literal six-day Creation or a 6000 year-old earth... ::pondering::
Things that make you go Hmmm.
Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Genesis 1:8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
I could go on. After all there are 4 more days to go.
Whom shall I believe? ::pondering::
and thou shalt take 2 of every kind etc....... and which thou wilt find twas impossible if I wouldst be taken literally. Thoust will feel compelled to attempt at explaining how it was done and find thy answers lacking.
OR
and I shalt leave false evidence as to tempt and try the faith of those who doth try to learn and apply the same brain in scientific approach successfully to the rest of their earthly experience in scientific discovery and application. In the end, only those who stand firm on the creation chapters saying they mean what they say shalt find other scriptures and spend much time in explaining why they don't mean what they say.
I don't have the answers but Answers in Genesis hasn't done it for me yet. Nor do I have any particular equally brilliant ideas of my own: Maybe someone will discover how the evidence really does mesh with the literal details (6 days - He made it look old, He could have spoke it into existence, etc. (Noah's ark - save the planet flora and fauna - miraculous contraevidence event. He maybe used liquid nitrogen and had a frozen zoo. Doesn't say Noah didn't - or did he have the technology then? All he needed was a couple of days - didn't need to start over. Why the flood and the preservation of one family anyway - another adam and eve event to populate the earth?)
I hope asking questions is not heresy! I don't expect God to make sense per se. But I do expect reality to reflect the Real.
: zoonance Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 14:43:22I hope asking questions is not heresy!
No, but the questions you are asking are pretty silly.
Not as silly as some of the counterarguments and "proofs" for a 6 day earth? It would be better sometimes not to try to prove it accurate and just accept it for what it says. It is as if science can only be used to prove or disprove rather than simply observe, investigate and develop a greater understanding of what it is and how and why? the how and why is where much of the debate lies. Much of the what is simply that ... what's right in front of us.
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 14:50:57
: zoonance Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 14:43:22I hope asking questions is not heresy!
No, but the questions you are asking are pretty silly.
On the contrary, they are enormously important questions. And I believe he asked them seriously, even if thou mightest protest his KJV English. ::smile::
CSloan, I have found that digging deeper has strengthened my faith, rather than weakening it. If we could fully comprehend everything about God, he wouldn't actually be God, but just a construct of our own minds.
Consider weighing some of the evidence regarding the age of the universe, as well as textual criticism evidence (as has been recommended to you). I know that you may still reach different conclusions than I have (and that's certainly okay), but I think your faith and also your Christian witness would be strengthened.
When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults. All of his creation was that way. After all he said be fruitful and multiply. You don't say that to an infant anything.
Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?
I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was. Several things need to be commented on.
First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown. A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.
Secondly, Just as today, many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.
Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark
I wanted to stop by long enough to vote. I think this is an interesting debate.
I believe:
... God created the heavens and the earth.
... God created it in 6 days.
... a day to a timeless God is any length He wants it to be.
... God speaks to me in truth.
... God speaks to me in any way that helps me understand.
... God has no gender.
... God is my FATHER.
... science indicates, points to, proves God's existence.
... science indicates, points to, proves God's miracles.
... my faith is built on so much more than my understanding of how the earth was created or how long it took.
... my faith is built on so much more than inferring that God must have lied to me then if it wasn't done in 6, 24 hr days.
... that one of the beautiful attributes of the Bible is its blending of poetry, allegory, prose and song.
... that through the blending of all of these, and other types of literature, God communicates to me TRUTH.
: jb728b Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:03:14
When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults. All of his creation was that way. After all he said be fruitful and multiply. You don't say that to an infant anything.
Actually, we don't know how old they were or how long of a time it was before God told them that. The creation of life and everything else from nothing is quite a feat in itself, wouldn't you say?
: jb728b Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:03:14
Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?
He could produce a planet any way He saw fit. Why are we putting guidelines on creation?
: jb728b Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:03:14
I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was. Several things need to be commented on.
First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown. A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.
Secondly, Just as today, many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.
Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark
It sounds like you need to have a complete physical understanding of what took place (on the ark AND in the creation story) and I don't know if that was God's intention at all. What do you think WAS God's intention? Is your faith shaken to think of creation in any other way than literally in 6 days?
My great opposition the day/age theory is this:
God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.
Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.
The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.
So now you have this great division between literal interpretation and a modern interpretation.
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.
Interesting, but I respectfully disagree. Think about how a grown parent talks to a little child that would have no way of understanding adult things. (This is not exactly a good analogy because a little child eventually grows up to be a grown parent but we never grow up to be God) "Daddy, where do babies come from?" I would probably just about go anywhere other than trying to explain specifics, but I would make a point of explaining the "truth" that God does it. Use birds and bees or something.
I don't think that we were EVER intended to know "everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25". Especially the nuts and bolts of the physical assembly of the universe. The first verse is enough for me.
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.
It doesn't imply to me "that God would be misleading". And I certainly don't find him using "misleading language to man" when His purpose isn't to give us a science lesson. To our natural question "How did we get here?" God is just saying in a very beautifully written way that through a glorious sculpting of created matter He formed us and all we have and see around us. And I find this very much in harmony with scripture and His loving nature. He says, "I AM". I have faith in THAT.
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.
I don't believe you have to be an evolutionist to not believe in a literal 6 day creation.
Do you mean that NO ONE believed in a non-literal 6 day creation before Darwin? For thousands of years? Do you really believe the reason people choose to believe this is because it "was invented to coincide with evolution theory"?
: Cross-titled Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 16:12:38
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.
Interesting, but I respectfully disagree. Think about how a grown parent talks to a little child that would have no way of understanding adult things. (This is not exactly a good analogy because a little child eventually grows up to be a grown parent but we never grow up to be God) "Daddy, where do babies come from?" I would probably just about go anywhere other than trying to explain specifics, but I would make a point of explaining the "truth" that God does it. Use birds and bees or something.
I don't think that we were EVER intended to know "everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25". Especially the nuts and bolts of the physical assembly of the universe. The first verse is enough for me.
I'm not talking about anything outside of whats contained in the passages. I think it was clear I wasn't talking about "nuts or bolts" of the assembly for the universe. I was addressing day/age theory.
You may be satisfied with the the first passage, but theres more then just Genesis 1:1.
: Cross-titled Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 16:12:38: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.
It doesn't imply to me "that God would be misleading". And I certainly don't find him using "misleading language to man" when His purpose isn't to give us a science lesson. To our natural question "How did we get here?" God is just saying in a very beautifully written way that through a glorious sculpting of created matter He formed us and all we have and see around us. And I find this very much in harmony with scripture and His loving nature. He says, "I AM". I have faith in THAT.
You either are purposefully ignoring what I posted, or misunderstood what I'm addressing. I was talking about the day/age theory and my objections to it.
: Cross-titled Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 16:12:38
: CSloan Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:27:25
The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.
I don't believe you have to be an evolutionist to not believe in a literal 6 day creation.
Do you mean that NO ONE believed in a non-literal 6 day creation before Darwin? For thousands of years? Do you really believe the reason people choose to believe this is because it "was invented to coincide with evolution theory"?
Yes, day/age was invented as a compromise to evolution and the idea of an old earth (billions of years). I'm not suggesting you have to believe in evolution to believe in day/age, but evolution was the prime factor in the development in this theory.
If you do not fully understand the theory of day/age, I suggest you look into it before continuing in a debate.
: jb728b Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 15:03:14
When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults. All of his creation was that way. After all he said be fruitful and multiply. You don't say that to an infant anything.
Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?
I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was. Several things need to be commented on.
First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown. A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.
Secondly, Just as today, many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.
Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark
My point exactly.
: normfromga Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 13:47:06
: Harold Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 13:14:12
: D Cunningham Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 06:06:40
To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.
There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.
FTL
I hope I mistook any inference that only an Evolutionist would doubt a literal six-day Creation or a 6000 year-old earth... ::pondering::
A theistic evolutionist still believes that we evolved over billions of years, a local flood......etc
FTL
Exo 20:11 In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.(GWT)
Now this verse is smack-dab in the middle of the Law/Ten Commandments, this God wrote with His own hand. Now draw a line in the sand, either God created in six literal days or God is a l........
FTL
... ot bigger than ancient civilizations ability to comprehend?
Thank you, zoo.
He's bigger than I can comprehend, too.
Luk 13:14 But the leader in charge of the synagogue was indignant that Jesus had healed her on the Sabbath day. "There are six days of the week for working," he said to the crowd. "Come on those days to be healed, not on the Sabbath."
Back to the OT,
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day He rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
Joh 1:3 God created everything through Him, and nothing was created except through Him.
Col 1:15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
Col 1:16 for through Him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through Him and for Him.
Eph 1:9 God has now revealed to us His mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill His own good pleasure.
Eph 1:10 And this is the plan: At the right time He will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.
Not so hard to understand. Why do we have a seven day week?
FTL
Why not use a seven day week as a experiental base to explain creation? Why can't we have a 2 day week or a 20 day week? Why a leap year? Why a gregorian calender and not a roman calender" (I have no idea what I am talking about! :) but I do recall that there have been some 'changes' to our calender et al. Why did He rest on the seventh day? what happened on the eighth? Why a seven day week? Maybe tradition, maybe biblical influence, I don't know. Like I have repeatedly said, simply accepting the bible as literal and "the way it is" is easier to swallow than the "proofs" that scientists are dishonest.
I still can not figure out why one of the greatest objections to evolution (which I have also stated that I am not convinced of its absolutes either!) has been the goofy question "If evolution is the truth, why can't we see it happening today? " or questions like that. I can't shake the obvious observation that the same people who speak of a species "adapting a bit" could do so in a few thousand years in just as many limited niches (temperature, marine versus fresh, forest versus desert, etc etc etc etc etc) but scoff at scientists for not finding "evolution going on today!" as proof that evolution isn't true.
Interestingly enough, I see that the Christian Chronicle has an article this month on the existence of God.
In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back. Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual. You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island. I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.
: zoonance Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 12:55:36
In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back. Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual. You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island. I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.
The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.
What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.
: mike Fri Feb 25, 2005 - 22:44:02
Barry said:
The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.
Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.
and
I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?
These assertions are incorrect.
Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.
Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.
Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.
Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.
Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".
Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.
.................................................................................
My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.
I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.
Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am not a theistic evolutionist.
Mike
this is a good post that may not have been viewed in a while.
: marc Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 14:18:08
: mike Fri Feb 25, 2005 - 22:44:02
Barry said:
The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.
Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.
and
I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?
These assertions are incorrect.
Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.
Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.
Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.
Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.
Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".
Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.
.................................................................................
My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.
I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.
Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am not a theistic evolutionist.
Mike
this is a good post that may not have been viewed in a while.
::applause::
Here is a quote from Irenaeus:
and there are some again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,
and sometimes we forget that the "ancients" used more figurative language than we do, not less.
: CSloan Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 13:03:58
: zoonance Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 12:55:36
In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back. Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual. You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island. I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.
The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.
What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.
Besides being blind and living completely underground.... What did the ancestor look like and how has it evolved into the naked mole rat and its cousins of today ? They built and went all over the earth? Maybe the wives did! And then took them back afterwards. That's one down. What about the worm snake?
marc,
I was just going to repost that info from the church fathers. Thank you for looking up the old post and saving me the trouble.
CSloan,
As you can see from this information, which I will repeat, the idea the the days in the creation week account
may not be literal 24 hour days precedes the development of anyone's theory of evolution by more than a thousand years.
For example:
Philo (20 BC - 45 AD) believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are only a metaphor, and that God created everything instantaneously.
Josephus (37 - 103 AD) questioned the meaning of the expression "one day".
Justin Martyr (100 - 166) believed each creation day was 1000 years long, based on Psalm 90:4 & II Peter 3:8.
Irenaeus (130 - 200) believed the same as Justin Martyr.
Hippolytus (170 - 236) also felt the same way.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 220) believed, like Philo, that creation days are only a metaphor. His idea was that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.
Origen (185 - 254) believed that the 7 creation days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.
Lactantius (250 - 325) 100 years/day, like Justin Martyr.
Eusebius of Caesarea (260 - 340) translated yom in Genesis 2:4 as day, referring to the entire creation week.
Basil of Caesarea (330 - 379) said the days represented ages, with the first day the beginning of creation.
Ambrose of Milan (340 - 397) believed the 7 days were a literal 144 hour period, but explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, such as "Day of the LORD" or "eternal day of reward."
Augustine (354 - 430) felt that the creation days were figurative. He said that evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.
Thus, your statement:
Yes, day/age was invented as a compromise to evolution and the idea of an old earth (billions of years). I'm not suggesting you have to believe in evolution to believe in day/age, but evolution was the prime factor in the development in this theory.
If you do not fully understand the theory of day/age, I suggest you look into it before continuing in a debate.
is not correct.
Might I suggest, brother, that you are the one who needs to spend a bit of time studying.
Take in consideration that EARTH does not speak of the GLOBE but of the dry, fruitful places where mankind can live.
Note also that in Matthew 13 Jesus explained that truth had been hidden in parables from the creation of the world. Other references make that the world defined in Genesis.
Job also speaks of clearly figurative creation and calls them "parables" in two places.
It is simply faith-destroying to teach and traffic on the notion that maybe 200 billion stars in 200 billion gallaxies "within out view" is only 6,000 light years across.
: zoonance Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 15:35:39
: CSloan Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 13:03:58
: zoonance Thu Aug 23, 2007 - 12:55:36
In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back. Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual. You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island. I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.
The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.
What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.
Besides being blind and living completely underground.... What did the ancestor look like and how has it evolved into the naked mole rat and its cousins of today ? They built and went all over the earth? Maybe the wives did! And then took them back afterwards. That's one down. What about the worm snake?
I'm not going to defend every point of the flood to your skepticism, the flood requires no apology.
Then why try? Let the others of us give it a shot.
Wow...I don't think I've ever read some much on the Creation of the earth! There are soo many opinions out there. I personally believe that God created the earth in 6 literal days (and rested on the 7th.) My question is, if they weren't literal days then how long was God resting for on the seventh day? You have to wonder if God created Adam and Eve and then decided to rest what was going on while he rested for lets say 1000 years? By that time Adam and Eve would have fallen short of God's glory, been banned from the garden, had Can and Abel, died and then some. It almost doesn't make sense to say that God didn't create the world in literal 24 hour days. I am not saying that it couldn't have happened. Only God knows the truth, but I can't find any evidence to support that fact. I don't care if man has been questioning it for years and if scientists believe in evolution. We must remember that man is WRONG at times. God is ALWAYS RIGHT. ALWAYS. He has never been wrong and never will be. I can in no way put my trust in man and that is why I cannot believe in most of the theories that man has come up with. God created the world. That is that. We can't be saved by debating when or how it was created, but it is nice to talk of such things!
Sequea
Fortunately, I sincerely doubt anybody on the Forum doubts that God is always right! :) Although, some do seem to indicate that to even try to contemplate how scientific discovery compliments or perhaps fine tunes our understanding of scripture is questioning His word. Not to say that theories of man can be full of holes, but so can any of our interpretive faculties!
: zoonance Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:47:51
Then why try? Let the others of us give it a shot.
So what are you saying, there is no global flood or was it local?
Or are you saying there was no flood at all?
I ask myself: How can a global flood and a boat filled with 2 of each, 7 pairs of unclean (not considered unclean until after the flood as no meat eating?) animals that came to him the bible says (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians? - doesn't say anything about fresh water or salt water animals) mesh with what we have in 2007 (and 1492 or 2000 BC for that matter)? Including all the food necessary to feed him and his family (maybe the animals didn't need to eat? Those with life cycles less than a year or so???) On the surface it is impossible and the apologetics offered to make it literal too often become embarrassing. However, I am trying to investigate the 'below the surface' facts, just as true, just as relevant, just as inspired and just as communicative of His will. Even with evidence that could indicate a world wide flood, the details of the arc, biology, etc aren't going to miraculously disappear as the ark is not a particularly miraculous event - in the sense that a wooden boat was used to save animals and a remnant of humanity in a physical, floating object subject to the same physical laws.
I realize that simply contemplating the possibility of the ancients interpreting their revelations on their tiny spot of territory that would be considered their entire world sounds more like the history channel's explanation than really another attempt to explain why the story exists and why the details don't mesh with reality.
I confess, once again, I don't have all the answers either. But face value literalism portrays an unrecognizable face and thus another explanation to God's infinite wisdom in dealing with His people seems worthy of exploration, even if the conclusion is eventually .... literal. Neither science nor scientists are to be painted with such a broad brush that motives, interpretations, observations are to be filtered solely by one's theological understanding as THE filter. God's word will always eventually reveal which theory or conclusion is off base anyway. By the mercy, grace and patience of God, He apparently allows us to continue to explore, seek to explain, discover Him in ways that are mysteries today and fulfillers of scripture tomorrow. rambling!
: zoonance Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 17:35:06
I ask myself: How can a global flood and a boat filled with 2 of each, 7 pairs of unclean (not considered unclean until after the flood as no meat eating?) animals that came to him the bible says (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians? - doesn't say anything about fresh water or salt water animals) mesh with what we have in 2007 (and 1492 or 2000 BC for that matter)? Including all the food necessary to feed him and his family (maybe the animals didn't need to eat? Those with life cycles less than a year or so???) On the surface it is impossible and the apologetics offered to make it literal too often become embarrassing. However, I am trying to investigate the 'below the surface' facts, just as true, just as relevant, just as inspired and just as communicative of His will. Even with evidence that could indicate a world wide flood, the details of the arc, biology, etc aren't going to miraculously disappear as the ark is not a particularly miraculous event - in the sense that a wooden boat was used to save animals and a remnant of humanity in a physical, floating object subject to the same physical laws.
I realize that simply contemplating the possibility of the ancients interpreting their revelations on their tiny spot of territory that would be considered their entire world sounds more like the history channel's explanation than really another attempt to explain why the story exists and why the details don't mesh with reality.
I confess, once again, I don't have all the answers either. But face value literalism portrays an unrecognizable face and thus another explanation to God's infinite wisdom in dealing with His people seems worthy of exploration, even if the conclusion is eventually .... literal. Neither science nor scientists are to be painted with such a broad brush that motives, interpretations, observations are to be filtered solely by one's theological understanding as THE filter. God's word will always eventually reveal which theory or conclusion is off base anyway. By the mercy, grace and patience of God, He apparently allows us to continue to explore, seek to explain, discover Him in ways that are mysteries today and fulfillers of scripture tomorrow. rambling!
I don't believe you answered my question.
You seem to object to the biblical concept of the flood and the ark, but I fail to see what your alternative is.
To be honest with you when I think about the flood, I take it as a global situation. If God had just flooded Noah's "country" then I am sure He would have said "And God said to Noah, 'I am going to flood your country.'" He said that He was going to flood the eintire world. Then again, maybe back then all of creation hadn't spread out to all the continents. And if all of the people had spread out to the entire world did the flood take place before the continents split? That would make a lot sense.
We have to remember that the flood probably took place some 6000 years ago. Whose to say that 6000 years ago we had all of the animals that we do now? I do not believe in evolution, but I do believe that animals have evolved to survive in their habitats, different animals have slept together to form new creatures. That is basically my point. Maybe 6000 years ago there weren't so many different kinds of species of animals out there. Am I right? I don't know and I honestly don't care. How did God put all of the animals on the ark? I don't know that either. But, God is God and I guess He can do whatever He gosh darn well pleases! ::juggle::
Sequea
: Sequea Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 23:18:24And if all of the people had spread out to the entire world did the flood take place before the continents split?
Or did the continents ever split, would be a better question. The idea that all the continents were one "supercontinent" or "pangaea" is an concept supported by evolutionism and an old earth (4.6 billion years). This is a silly idea since the continents aren't lilypads floating around the oceans. And to make the "pieces" fit they rotated Africa 90° and removed Central America entirely.
Heres more info if your interested.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate_tectonics.asp
I am not saying that I totally agree with the Pangaea concept, but I was thinking that maybe the continents "split" when the flood happened. I know that in the Bible it says that the waters came up out of the earth. Maybe this force caused the continents to split like that. Genesis 7:11 says: "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth." Does that mean that the continents split? No, but it could. And also in Genesis 10:25 it says "To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for IN HIS DAYS THE EARTH WAS DIVIDED." I don't know. I am probably making some GREAT speculations. God is God and if He wanted the nations to split in one day then I am sure that He could have done it. He isn't bound to BILLIONS of years. To God time does not exist. It was just for His human creation did He create time. Just my two cents. ::cool::
Sequea
: Sequea Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 10:11:44
I am not saying that I totally agree with the Pangaea concept, but I was thinking that maybe the continents "split" when the flood happened. I know that in the Bible it says that the waters came up out of the earth. Maybe this force caused the continents to split like that. Genesis 7:11 says: "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth." Does that mean that the continents split? No, but it could. And also in Genesis 10:25 it says "To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for IN HIS DAYS THE EARTH WAS DIVIDED." I don't know. I am probably making some GREAT speculations. God is God and if He wanted the nations to split in one day then I am sure that He could have done it. He isn't bound to BILLIONS of years. To God time does not exist. It was just for His human creation did He create time. Just my two cents. ::cool::
Sequea
You seem well studied on this topic.
Indeed, I would agree with your take on both Genesis 7:11 and 10:25. I clearly misunderstood your previous comment. May God continue to bless your understanding as he clearly has already done.
Manna to you.
Charles,
I am in no WAY a scholar. I just tend to get too deep into the meaning of scriptures. It baffles me that there is so much to the scriptures that we can't see with the human eye. Hey, maybe the continents NEVER split and God intended them to look like a jigsaw puzzle that COULD fit together. God's an artist. Maybe He just wanted to have a little fun ::disco::
God said it that settles it.
Amen ::applause::
: jb728b Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 10:57:52
God said it that settles it.
And when we believe it......Now that is Good News.
FTL
And when we find science supporting scripture it is also news that is good. Although not the Good News.
I like this explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ)
Might vote for him also!
He stated he didn't know how long God took to create the earth but affirms it was God. This very sentiment is in fact the subject of this thread and consider the way this politician would be recieved on this thread and similar ones on the apologetics section. Can a christian be a christian and not state emphatically that he or she doesn't know if it was 6 literal days or not?
'Can a christian be a christian and not state emphatically that he or she doesn't know if it was 6 literal days or not?'
of course. God required no confession regarding genesis views before baptism.
dj
Act 4:24 When they heard the report, all the believers lifted their voices together in prayer to God: "O Sovereign Lord, Creator of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them—
Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Eph 3:9 I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning.
Eph 3:10 God's purpose in all this was to use the church to display His wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was His eternal plan, which He carried out through Christ Jesus our LORD.
Col 1:15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
Col 1:16 for through Him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through Him and for Him.
Col 3:10 Put on your new nature, and be renewed as you learn to know your Creator and become like Him.
A politician is going to say what they are going to say.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day He rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
I look at the natural world, and explain it according to the Bible. I would never change the Bible to explain the natural world.
Rom 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (NLT)
I don't see how you can confess Jesus, and then say, not in Genesis.
FTL
harold, i'm beginning to worry over you.
so put the confession right here or calm down -
neither peter nor Jesus said repent and be baptized and make that genesis confession in compliance to what some think or you'll go straight to hell.
dj
Harold and some others have made their worries about 6-literal-days into a Shibboleth.
: janine Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 00:00:04
Harold and some others have made their worries about 6-literal-days into a Shibboleth.
That is an excellent analogy Janine. And I think that what some have done, especially with the "Are theistic evolutionist Christians" thread.
But where I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis not to be a Christian, I do see them on a slippery slope. I do consider anyone who confesses a sincere believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as a brother in Christ, and I wouldn't judge them for their interpitatons. But I think we should be free to discuss these topics with each other without become judgemental or divisive.
God is not the author of confusion
God does not tempt man to do evil (or to think it for that matter)
If the 6 days of Genesis were something else besides six days why chose the word "day"? Would that not make God the author of confusion? The very fact that this thread exist means there is some confusion as to what the word "day" means.
In order to keep this thread on topic, the discussion on voting has been split to a separate topic in the Politics forum here: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20154.0 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20154.0).
: david johnson Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 17:33:29
harold, i'm beginning to worry over you.
so put the confession right here or calm down -
neither peter nor Jesus said repent and be baptized and make that genesis confession in compliance to what some think or you'll go straight to hell.
dj
Did God create all things through Jesus?
FTL
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:06:03
: david johnson Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 17:33:29
harold, i'm beginning to worry over you.
so put the confession right here or calm down -
neither peter nor Jesus said repent and be baptized and make that genesis confession in compliance to what some think or you'll go straight to hell.
dj
Did God create all things through Jesus?
FTL
no, it appears Jesus (the Word) was the creator -
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
dj
: david johnson Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 17:56:02
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:06:03
: david johnson Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 17:33:29
harold, i'm beginning to worry over you.
so put the confession right here or calm down -
neither peter nor Jesus said repent and be baptized and make that genesis confession in compliance to what some think or you'll go straight to hell.
dj
Did God create all things through Jesus?
FTL
no, it appears Jesus (the Word) was the creator -
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
dj
Excellent point, so did Jesus create all things in six literal days?
FTL
neither of us knows for sure. one of takes some things literally and the other believes the Spirit expressed certain items with a figurative literary aspect.
early genesis is composed in a 'theme & variations' concept ala a musical form.
theme -
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
elaboration - He created this, and this, and...
genesis 1:2 - genesis 2:3
elaboration - concerning adam and eve within the creation, this happened...
genesis 2:4 - 25
it is not more valid to consider this style a cold data list than it is to consider it a literary device the original writers/readers and (before them) orators were inspired to use to present God's story regarding the beginning.
dj
: david johnson Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 19:52:48
neither of us knows for sure. one of takes some things literally and the other believes the Spirit expressed certain items with a figurative literary aspect.
early genesis is composed in a 'theme & variations' concept ala a musical form.
theme -
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
elaboration - He created this, and this, and...
genesis 1:2 - genesis 2:3
elaboration - concerning adam and eve within the creation, this happened...
genesis 2:4 - 25
it is not more valid to consider this style a cold data list than it is to consider it a literary device the original writers/readers and (before them) orators were inspired to use to present God's story regarding the beginning.
dj
I am not sure, but this idea would probably not fly on answersingenesis. (a source often cited as the credible summation of the proper christian science apologetics on genesis.) I think it should be called answersaboutgenesis since there is less 'in' than there is 'about'. Note that one of us would likely be considered a biblical christian and one of us could not be so considered. Speaking for myself, I ask a question and the aig answers pop up as if those settle it! Not only that, to simply ask a question seems to invite a number of labels of us ignorant, biblically illiterates.
: zoonance Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 12:18:57
: david johnson Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 19:52:48
neither of us knows for sure. one of takes some things literally and the other believes the Spirit expressed certain items with a figurative literary aspect.
early genesis is composed in a 'theme & variations' concept ala a musical form.
theme -
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
elaboration - He created this, and this, and...
genesis 1:2 - genesis 2:3
elaboration - concerning adam and eve within the creation, this happened...
genesis 2:4 - 25
it is not more valid to consider this style a cold data list than it is to consider it a literary device the original writers/readers and (before them) orators were inspired to use to present God's story regarding the beginning.
dj
I am not sure, but this idea would probably not fly on answersingenesis. (a source often cited as the credible summation of the proper christian science apologetics on genesis.) I think it should be called answersaboutgenesis since there is less 'in' than there is 'about'. Note that one of us would likely be considered a biblical christian and one of us could not be so considered. Speaking for myself, I ask a question and the aig answers pop up as if those settle it! Not only that, to simply ask a question seems to invite a number of labels of us ignorant, biblically illiterates.
I have not said that, at least I don't think I have, but I have received a few labels.
In Ex 20:11 God says, as He wrote on the tablet, in six days I created the heavens and the earth. Evening, morning, a day. Try it out for yourself. Plain reading, plainly says six literal days.
This has run its course also.
FTL
plain reading is not what's being utilized. willful non-recognition of literary forms employed by the Spirit does not equal comprehension of what happened.
both deep-end evos and the staunchest literalists are in the same boat rowing against each other.
each claim the truth and don't know why smarter folks on the 'issue' are unimpressed.
dj
I guess that is where I am coming from. I ask a question - not to prove or disprove anything. I ask and just for asking, it is interpreted as impure or improper motives. I then question the learned and clear answers offered and see plenty of holes in them too. If one draws a line in the sand, I can understand that. But drawing a line is not the same as providing answers that make sense. It would be better not to try, I think.
what specific question do you refer to? we've rambled so much here i've lost track!
dj
I don't remember either! I don't think it matters anymore anyway. Given the title of this thread, it may have been something like "What about the evidence suggesting the contrary?" and you can look up the wonderful responses to that simple question.
yeah. let's go get coffee ::smile::
dj
: zoonance Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 08:03:17
I don't remember either! I don't think it matters anymore anyway. Given the title of this thread, it may have been something like "What about the evidence suggesting the contrary?" and you can look up the wonderful responses to that simple question.
This is a good example, without providing any of the evidence there is, to what would I respond. Hence obscure answers.
The Bible says, for us less educated, evening, morning, length a day.
What evidence do you have to refute this statement?
FTL
FTL
1) it's your statement and as such is no better than anyone else's.
2) already been done w/o ANY obscurity!
dj
Hi Harold. I thought you were finished with all this? I don't refute anything. Of course that is what it says. If it means what it says, then what's the big deal? Leave it at that. The evidence will support it.
By the way, is there ANY other scripture in the bible that we as christians will spend 26+ pages discussing why it does or does not mean what it says?
baptism, instrumental accompaniments in a worship service, remarriage...yep they're everywhere!
dj
: david johnson Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 17:45:29
baptism, instrumental accompaniments in a worship service, remarriage...yep they're everywhere!
dj
Women speaking, who passes out the communion, tongues, Spiritual gifts..........
Love you guys, and thanks for putting up with my inputs.
FTL
: Harold Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 14:12:10
: zoonance Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 08:03:17
I don't remember either! I don't think it matters anymore anyway. Given the title of this thread, it may have been something like "What about the evidence suggesting the contrary?" and you can look up the wonderful responses to that simple question.
This is a good example, without providing any of the evidence there is, to what would I respond. Hence obscure answers.
The Bible says, for us less educated, evening, morning, length a day.
What evidence do you have to refute this statement?
FTL
FTL
I would suggest spending some time reading and contemplating those who wrestle with what they find and discover why they fine tune their conclusions. For those of us who do, it is a fascinating journey but I warn you that you will have to wrestle with the facts as well. Facts shouldn't frighten you. (Maybe I am wrong - Does all truth come from God? or is there deceiving secular truths (not interpretations, but clear, repeatable observations, that which is either true or it is false - simply because it is true or false - apart from God?)
There is nothing apart from God. Or rather, there is no Godless vacuum.
Not even Hell, really. You can bet there's a lot of thought (and cursing and screaming) about God in Hell.
: zoonance Tue Nov 13, 2007 - 15:23:34
I would suggest spending some time reading and contemplating those who wrestle with what they find and discover why they fine tune their conclusions. For those of us who do, it is a fascinating journey but I warn you that you will have to wrestle with the facts as well. Facts shouldn't frighten you. (Maybe I am wrong - Does all truth come from God? or is there deceiving secular truths (not interpretations, but clear, repeatable observations, that which is either true or it is false - simply because it is true or false - apart from God?)
Facts shouldn't frighten us - but I think unfortunately they do. Maybe its just misplaced faith? God usually fills the areas of mystery for us. When something can't be explained mechanically - then we say it must be God or"God of the gaps". When our faith's foundation is in those gaps - then it is unfortunately put in the position of retreating when more and more "gaps" are explained scientifically. I think this is a weakness of traditional apologetics. It might be changing as we learn more of the strange world of quantum mechanics.
Intellegent design apologetics I think are no better than a deist position. I think we get a better idea of God through relationships, love, art, music, beauty, etc. But then - everyone is different, one person may see God in something that I'm totally oblivious to.
we do not know 26 pages of stuff regarding this ::smile::
dj
This may not make any sense. I wonder if there is a definite difference in believing and resting on the promises of God versus resting on the "information" (which is at least partly subject to human understanding) as equals. *Trust Me. Believe in Me. Repent of sin or else. I will always be with you. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. I will make you a great nation. -stuff like that.
It makes sense to me that God has recorded his tendency to quite clear - word for word - when he demanded or expected a direct understanding. And has uses a different language when he wants us to internalize or maybe capture the point
For example: The consequences of sin are clearly tied to day to day existence and our relationship to God - now and eternally. I am not as sure that intellectual knowledge has the same wedge power.
By the way, the way God confronts Job in the final chapters of Job as He describes His role in creation sounds kind of scientifically revealing in a way that Genesis prose does not. (If that makes any sense)
: zoonance Fri Nov 16, 2007 - 12:52:53
This may not make any sense. I wonder if there is a definite difference in believing and resting on the promises of God versus resting on the "information" (which is at least partly subject to human understanding) as equals. *Trust Me. Believe in Me. Repent of sin or else. I will always be with you. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. I will make you a great nation. -stuff like that.
It makes sense to me that God has recorded his tendency to quite clear - word for word - when he demanded or expected a direct understanding. And has uses a different language when he wants us to internalize or maybe capture the point
For example: The consequences of sin are clearly tied to day to day existence and our relationship to God - now and eternally. I am not as sure that intellectual knowledge has the same wedge power.
Very astute. You've discovered something fundamental about faith of the Biblical variety. Faith can never be in something (an idea), it can only be in someone (person).
Greek has several different words for "know" that highlight differences in 'why' one knows.
Pistis, faith/belief, is knowing something because you trust the person who told you.
Gnosis, know/knowledge, is knowing something because you've experienced it. There's another word (can't remember the Gr right now) that means "know because you logically deduced it from other facts." That one is usually translated "understand."
That's why this will never be settled. Nobody "knows" in the sense above.
Some of us "believe" something, and some of us "understand" something, and there is no way to settle differences where the two conflict.
By the way, the way God confronts Job in the final chapters of Job as He describes His role in creation sounds kind of scientifically revealing in a way that Genesis prose does not. (If that makes any sense)
Well there's a good can of worms. Open if you dare. Job is a very challenging book, in more ways than one.
: zoonance Fri Mar 11, 2005 - 13:05:15
I am cursed with a brain who thinks too much. I happen to work in a zoo and believe me, a christian in the zoo world are either endangered or at risk of extinction! I picture all the animals in the world waiting in the ark for over a year (some animal' life spans are less than a year by the way), separated by the clean and unclean (meat eating, for humans any way, was not OK'd until after the flood. All these animals are then turned loose on Mount Ararat and the earth is then replinished, all the continents, all the isolated islands, all the strictly tropical and the strictly frozen polar animals (not sure about the plants) from animals that can produce their own kind. I am in no way suggesting that evolution is the answer, but rather, by the grace of God I have been cursed with questions in a profession that does not fit genesis literally. However, the truth of a created world, whatever the details, points to my God in ways that words could never quite explain. The vast majority of my world could not care less about fighting over points of theology. They can't even accept the 'theo' yet! This is why the grace centered magazine is so important to me. you all believe and allow thinking minds to think! THANK YOU ALL!!! Mike
I still think Grace Centered Forum is very important to my walk!
I can't answer the poll. To answer either True or False is to go beyond that which is written. ::tippinghat::
Genesis1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
I'm pretty sure
an evening and
a morning weren't going on for billions of years at a time.....
So 7 days, actual 7 days.
And it says
A third day...not 3 milion years of a day...
: rick6886 Thu Feb 24, 2005 - 20:36:47
Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.
For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Using purely science and learned hard data within science and Astrophysics, categorically true. If you take the premise of the most accepted notion of how we began at The Planc Moment, the Big Bang, this lines up closely to the biblical accounting of creation quite well.
Robert
for to the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...
: Flying To Wed Nov 12, 2008 - 19:57:11
Genesis1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
I'm pretty sure an evening and a morning weren't going on for billions of years at a time.....
So 7 days, actual 7 days.
And it says A third day...not 3 milion years of a day...
Wouldn't it be nice if all doctrine was this easy!
: Flying To Wed Nov 12, 2008 - 19:57:11
I'm pretty sure an evening and a morning weren't going on for billions of years at a time.....
So 7 days, actual 7 days.
And it says A third day...not 3 milion years of a day...
So how long IS a day when there is no sun yet? ::whistle::
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Nov 26, 2008 - 23:39:42
: Flying To Wed Nov 12, 2008 - 19:57:11
I'm pretty sure an evening and a morning weren't going on for billions of years at a time.....
So 7 days, actual 7 days.
And it says A third day...not 3 milion years of a day...
So how long IS a day when there is no sun yet? ::whistle::
A more interesting question is how is there evening (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6153&t=KJV)and morning (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1242&t=KJV)the first 3 days without a sun.
: the innate Tue Nov 18, 2008 - 18:58:16
for to the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...
So, was Jesus in the tomb for 3,000 years, or for just over a third of a second?
: James Rondon Thu Nov 27, 2008 - 00:23:38
: the innate Tue Nov 18, 2008 - 18:58:16
for to the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...
So, was Jesus in the tomb for 3,000 years, or for just over a third of a second?
It just seemed like 3000 years.
And nobody ever answered my question...
How long is a day when there is no sun or moon?
You can open the bible on ANY PAGE you want and find a metaphor giving guidance on how to live, how to treat others, and how to treat the world. Who are we to say that the Bible is not using metaphors in Genesis, as it does everywhere else. We have been given the guide, now with our technology we can go out and try to understand God's creation, why people choose to turn their back on the marvels of what we discover is beyond me.
: Howdyboyalan Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:59:52
You can open the bible on ANY PAGE you want and find a metaphor giving guidance on how to live, how to treat others, and how to treat the world. Who are we to say that the Bible is not using metaphors in Genesis, as it does everywhere else. We have been given the guide, now with our technology we can go out and try to understand God's creation, why people choose to turn their back on the marvels of what we discover is beyond me.
First, because it is not what they believe. Too often what they believe presupposes what they read. Hence the interpretation given all too often is based on that presupposition. That was the case of the earth-centric beliefs in the early 1600's even though Galileo and others provided convincing evidence to the contrary. Very often, those with strong beliefs are unmoved by even the most convincing data.
And second, a lot of folks are simply not equipped to really understand what the data is saying. They are too ready to accept anything that supports what they believe even if it is apparent to those who do understand that what they believe is quite nonrational.
And third, too many people are afraid if they recant on this issue, their whole faith will be jeopardized. So that what they perceive is a strong faith to withstand the "onslaught" is in fact a weak faith.
Genesis 2:2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."
Just a thought to throw in against common thinking of creation. To me it says God ended His work on the seventh day, not the sixth.
In Jesus' name - larry2
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 03:50:30
Genesis 2:2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."
Just a thought to throw in against common thinking of creation. To me it says God ended His work on the seventh day, not the sixth.
In Jesus' name - larry2
One of the arguments given for the 24-hour day meaning for the six days of creation is the reference to the evening and morning of each day. But the seventh day has no such evening or morning. Moreoever, it says that
"the heavens and the earth were finished" and
"God finished his work that he had done" and
"God rested from all his work that he had done in creation". Now since God in fact is still resting from all His work He had done in creation, and will not take that up again until the heavens and earth are made new again, how long is the seventh day?
Quoting Jimmy - "God finished his work that he had done."
Response - I'm sorry, but my KJV says "On the seventh day God ended his work which he made."
In the sense of renewal within us, God's creation goes on.
Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Philippians 2:13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
There are so many works of the Spirit that continues, Jesus is at work as our daysman and judge, and our Father sits on the throne of grace inviting us to pray. God is not resting, but doing all things for our good.
In Jesus' name - larry2
I said true because later JESUS mentioned them as 6 litteral days. Plus when was the last time The day and the night took thousands of years to come around?
False. God is a God of truth. God's creation contains record of events which occurred further in the past than a literal reading of the six-day Genesis account will permit. If God is a God of truth the record He left in creation must be true, thus the interpretation of six days must be in error. My take.
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
Quoting Jimmy - "God finished his work that he had done."
Response - I'm sorry, but my KJV says "On the seventh day God ended his work which he made."
Why are you sorry? But for what it is worth.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. (ESV)
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. (DRB)
Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (NASB)The difference is moot, it seems to me and I don't seen that it really changes anything. This is clearly speaking about the creation of the creation of the physical universe and all that is in it. I am not aware of any new things being created in the universe. Perhaps you have some insight into that.
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
In the sense of renewal within us, God's creation goes on.
Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Philippians 2:13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
There are so many works of the Spirit that continues, Jesus is at work as our daysman and judge, and our Father sits on the throne of grace inviting us to pray. God is not resting, but doing all things for our good.
The Genesis record is not talking about renewals. It is talking about the creation of the universe.
It doesn't say, nor did I say, that God is resting. Just that He is resting from His work of creating.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)
: Barry Fri Feb 25, 2005 - 09:08:44
For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?
Barry
The "morning and evening" were God's day = 1,000 years of man, but only one day with God.
: MegaJedi Sat Feb 07, 2009 - 04:41:26
I said true because later JESUS mentioned them as 6 litteral days. Plus when was the last time The day and the night took thousands of years to come around?
I suppose you would have to be sitting on the throne of God and wearing his shoes to find out. These were God's days, not man's days.
: Jimmy Sat Feb 07, 2009 - 16:42:57
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
Quoting Jimmy - "God finished his work that he had done."
Response - I'm sorry, but my KJV says "On the seventh day God ended his work which he made."
Why are you sorry? But for what it is worth.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. (ESV)
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. (DRB)
Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (NASB)
The difference is moot, it seems to me and I don't seen that it really changes anything. This is clearly speaking about the creation of the creation of the physical universe and all that is in it. I am not aware of any new things being created in the universe. Perhaps you have some insight into that.
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
In the sense of renewal within us, God's creation goes on.
Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Philippians 2:13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
There are so many works of the Spirit that continues, Jesus is at work as our daysman and judge, and our Father sits on the throne of grace inviting us to pray. God is not resting, but doing all things for our good.
The Genesis record is not talking about renewals. It is talking about the creation of the universe.
It doesn't say, nor did I say, that God is resting. Just that He is resting from His work of creating.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)
The reason you do not see the words - "and the evening and the morning was the seventh day" -- is because God did not work on the seventh day - he rested from his work. Another way of looking at the words "evening and morning" - is to say from "start to finish" this is what I did in my work.
: Mystery Man Thu Feb 12, 2009 - 06:06:48
: Jimmy Sat Feb 07, 2009 - 16:42:57
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
Quoting Jimmy - "God finished his work that he had done."
Response - I'm sorry, but my KJV says "On the seventh day God ended his work which he made."
Why are you sorry? But for what it is worth.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. (ESV)
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. (DRB)
Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (NASB)
The difference is moot, it seems to me and I don't seen that it really changes anything. This is clearly speaking about the creation of the creation of the physical universe and all that is in it. I am not aware of any new things being created in the universe. Perhaps you have some insight into that.
: larry2 Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:32:09
In the sense of renewal within us, God's creation goes on.
Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Philippians 2:13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
There are so many works of the Spirit that continues, Jesus is at work as our daysman and judge, and our Father sits on the throne of grace inviting us to pray. God is not resting, but doing all things for our good.
The Genesis record is not talking about renewals. It is talking about the creation of the universe.
It doesn't say, nor did I say, that God is resting. Just that He is resting from His work of creating.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)
The reason you do not see the words - "and the evening and the morning was the seventh day" -- is because did not work on the seventh day - he rested from his work. Another way of looking at the words "evening and morning" - is to say from "start to finish" this is what I did in my work.
You can look at it however you wish, but as usual, it doesn't really have anything to do with what it says.
: rick6886 Thu Feb 24, 2005 - 20:36:47
Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.
For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.
my humble 2 cents
Rick
yes it is true.
Does any man have a right to compromise Gods truth agreeing to disagree? No I dont think so. Either the bible is all Gods word. Or I can't trust any of it.
How did god measure the days prior to his creation of the sun? Therefore how should he have been able to tell whether or not the days were 24 hours in length?
- I don't think so. We can never know for sure, but I don't believe that we are on the exact same time schedule as God is. Obviously God can do anything in any amount of time and it wouldn't be an issue. But, I don't think he did. Just like the prehistoric era [think dinosaurs and such] could have lasted one day in God's time which could have been who knows how long in our time.
The Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. The Hebrew word used for day is translated as a "single 24hr. day." The people then would have not taken that word figuratively and neither should we. People try to warp that word to fit our societies beliefs on creationism and evolutionism by saying those days were millions of years and stuff like that but we just need to have faith in what God's word truly says and know that God has the power to do anything and if He wanted to create the world in 6 days, He could.
: skywalker85 Sun Feb 22, 2009 - 23:52:00
The Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. The Hebrew word used for day is translated as a "single 24hr. day." The people then would have not taken that word figuratively and neither should we. People try to warp that word to fit our societies beliefs on creationism and evolutionism by saying those days were millions of years and stuff like that but we just need to have faith in what God's word truly says and know that God has the power to do anything and if He wanted to create the world in 6 days, He could.
Also remember that God could have created the universe in 1 nanosecond if he wanted.
I have a hard time with this one. It's because I believe in an old earth and a pre adamic race. I'm not set in stone about that or anything but i don't think that God would have just created everything like it was already aged or something. Because the calculations of the time of Adam to like Abraham wasn't millions of years so most of the stuff on earth that scientists claim to be millions or even billions of years old can't really be that old if Adam was the true first man. So with all that to say, I think that the six days could really be 24 hour periods but there has to be some time somewhere else in there.
: dothackzero Mon Feb 23, 2009 - 00:03:57
: skywalker85 Sun Feb 22, 2009 - 23:52:00
The Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. The Hebrew word used for day is translated as a "single 24hr. day." The people then would have not taken that word figuratively and neither should we. People try to warp that word to fit our societies beliefs on creationism and evolutionism by saying those days were millions of years and stuff like that but we just need to have faith in what God's word truly says and know that God has the power to do anything and if He wanted to create the world in 6 days, He could.
Also remember that God could have created the universe in 1 nanosecond if he wanted.
There doesn't seem to be any reason that God couldn't have created the universe to be only what we can see with our naked eye. That is what the ancients thought. There is no reason that God had to create the universe as large (~ 15 billion light years across) as it is. He could have made it any size He wished.
The question is not what God could have done. It is what did God do.
: Biznit22 Mon Feb 23, 2009 - 01:31:06
I have a hard time with this one. It's because I believe in an old earth and a pre adamic race. I'm not set in stone about that or anything but i don't think that God would have just created everything like it was already aged or something. Because the calculations of the time of Adam to like Abraham wasn't millions of years so most of the stuff on earth that scientists claim to be millions or even billions of years old can't really be that old if Adam was the true first man. So with all that to say, I think that the six days could really be 24 hour periods but there has to be some time somewhere else in there.
but
God did create Adam and Eve with age. They were not infants But Adults
he also created Mature tress Anamals etc .
This may make some faint and cry foul that any religion could be so strict .
BUT
since evey member of confessional lutheran synod's has to believe and confess in a 6 natural day creation along with every other doctrine of the bible also.
Wisconsin evangelical lutheran synod has a web site that helps those that have questions about creation . Your welcome to view it.
and in the right column you can click on articles and read many of those interesting articles also.
It also has on the left side links to other creation websites. With a CAUTION disclaimer .
http://www.lutheranscience.org/
: skywalker85 Sun Feb 22, 2009 - 23:52:00
The Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. The Hebrew word used for day is translated as a "single 24hr. day." The people then would have not taken that word figuratively and neither should we. People try to warp that word to fit our societies beliefs on creationism and evolutionism by saying those days were millions of years and stuff like that but we just need to have faith in what God's word truly says and know that God has the power to do anything and if He wanted to create the world in 6 days, He could.
I don't think they were doing interpretations at the word level. That's done more at the chapter level.
The fact that the whole account is designed to describe a PROCESS of creation should, I think, be a tip-off.