"Day" in Genesis 1:5
Comments
-
@reformed said:
I'm certainly not saying that God could not have created the universe 6000 years ago together with a "projected" history of 13 billion years that we can research in great detail and thanks to the speed of light even visibly observe (not only observe the current universe could just have appearance of age, but to observe the past itself).
This is what I am proposing. Everything was created to appear to have a history to look natural to us.
This is exactly not what I've been saying. The universe not only has the appearance of age, but we have the ability to observe this past itself.
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
Of course you don't know that you can view 13 billion years of cosmic history, that is a theory and assumptions.
That's why I posted the video quite early in this discussion that goes into great details.
And there are several small details in Scripture that indicate long periods of time. I've listed the unequivocal use of "yom" as periods longer than 24 hours for example in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:17. No explanation has been offered for these so far.
The other meanings do not fit the context of Genesis 1 and other Scripture, such as Moses and Jesus, that interpret Genesis 1 to be a literal week.
Moses compares the creation week (6 yoms) with the work week (6 different yoms). I don't see a contradiction.
As for your quote from Matthew, please elaborate how you come to the conclusion that Jesus interprets Genesis 1 as six 24-hour-days.Then there's Noah using pitch to coat the ark (Geneisis 6:14). Pitch is made from tar, which consists of fossile remains. Where did the tar come from? According to YEC, all the tar was formed during the flood, and not through a process that took millions of years.
Have you ever heard of wood tar? Tar does not only come from fossil remains.
The pitch Noah used apparently was not wood tar, but a bituminous substance.
Sources:
Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). In New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Negev, A. (1990). In The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall Press.
Ryle, H. E. (1921). The Book of Genesis in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orr, J., Nuelsen, J. L., Mullins, E. Y., & Evans, M. O. (1915). In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.The LXX also translates it as bitumen.
@reformed said:
Did he create Adam as a baby? It's the same thing. This has nothing to do with deception but the fact that he wanted to make things functional for mankind http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/ @janActually there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Feel free to visit ICR. There is just as much evidence that the universie is 13 billion years old as there is that we came from primordial ooze. ZERO. Also zero evidence of common ancestors.
All of these arguments are thoroughly refuted in the video.
-
Does anyone here own this course? Is it worth it? It's currently on sale. The day age view is missing though.
-
Scholar to Scholar
"Should a Scientific theory, by its very nature and the breadth, should ever have priority over Scripture? In the final analysis, the ultimate conclusion about the final norm for scientific views and religious faith is probably made on the basis of the conviction, or presupposition, of the interpreter's stance on the authority levels of science and faith. We must also contend that science is constantly in flux and makes no absolute claims.
Suffice it to say that if Scripture is understood to be the result of divine revelation and written under inspiration, it would have a dimension of authority not found in the so-called book of nature. Based on that higher dimension of authority, Scripture can assist in interpretation of the book of nature, providing a more comprehensive model of interpretation than might be expected from a purely naturalistic model.
Scripture, if it is to maintain its own integrity, can hardly be interpreted in such a way as to be accommodated time and again to any kind of interpretation derived from science, sociology, history, etc. Scripture, based on its own nature and authority, has its own integrity of meaning and its inherent truth claims. They emerge ever more clearly on the basis of a careful study of the Bible with sound methods of interpretation which are in harmony with and rooted in the testimony of Scripture itself. This implies that Scripture's authority resides in itself; it is based in revelation and grounded in inspiration.
The self-sufficiency of Scripture of which we have spoken does not mean that any question raised from other areas of investigation such as science, history, sociology and so on cannot be discussed with reference to Scripture. But there is a vast difference between asking new questions of Scripture and superimposing meaning on Scripture." What say ye? CM
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
I'm certainly not saying that God could not have created the universe 6000 years ago together with a "projected" history of 13 billion years that we can research in great detail and thanks to the speed of light even visibly observe (not only observe the current universe could just have appearance of age, but to observe the past itself).
This is what I am proposing. Everything was created to appear to have a history to look natural to us.
This is exactly not what I've been saying. The universe not only has the appearance of age, but we have the ability to observe this past itself.
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
Of course you don't know that you can view 13 billion years of cosmic history, that is a theory and assumptions.
That's why I posted the video quite early in this discussion that goes into great details.
Which video, apparetnly I missed the link.
And there are several small details in Scripture that indicate long periods of time. I've listed the unequivocal use of "yom" as periods longer than 24 hours for example in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:17. No explanation has been offered for these so far.
The other meanings do not fit the context of Genesis 1 and other Scripture, such as Moses and Jesus, that interpret Genesis 1 to be a literal week.
Moses compares the creation week (6 yoms) with the work week (6 different yoms). I don't see a contradiction.
As for your quote from Matthew, please elaborate how you come to the conclusion that Jesus interprets Genesis 1 as six 24-hour-days.There is no evidence that there is reason to believe Moses understood the creation week as anything different than six literal days. He is saying God did the same work week as we do now, one day of rest. That being said, Jesus uses Genesis as literal historical accounts much throughout the Gospels. Therefore, if he takes it to be literal, why would Gen 1 be any different?
Then there's Noah using pitch to coat the ark (Geneisis 6:14). Pitch is made from tar, which consists of fossile remains. Where did the tar come from? According to YEC, all the tar was formed during the flood, and not through a process that took millions of years.
Have you ever heard of wood tar? Tar does not only come from fossil remains.
The pitch Noah used apparently was not wood tar, but a bituminous substance.
Sources:
Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). In New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Negev, A. (1990). In The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall Press.
Ryle, H. E. (1921). The Book of Genesis in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orr, J., Nuelsen, J. L., Mullins, E. Y., & Evans, M. O. (1915). In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.The LXX also translates it as bitumen.
There is debate of course about this since the word is rare and mostly unused. That being said, bitumen is the way the LXX translated it, but I would encourage you to look at ALL of the definitions of bitumen. Pine Tar would still suffice. We also don't know every substance that was available prior to the flood.
@reformed said:
Did he create Adam as a baby? It's the same thing. This has nothing to do with deception but the fact that he wanted to make things functional for mankind http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/ @janActually there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Feel free to visit ICR. There is just as much evidence that the universie is 13 billion years old as there is that we came from primordial ooze. ZERO. Also zero evidence of common ancestors.
All of these arguments are thoroughly refuted in the video.
Doubt that they are adequately refuted.
-
One major point we overlook is that scripture produces faith. And science produces doubt unless it squares with scripture. So I always go with faith even if it is repulsive to others.
-
@C_M_ said:
The self-sufficiency of Scripture of which we have spoken does not mean that any question raised from other areas of investigation such as science, history, sociology and so on cannot be discussed with reference to Scripture. But there is a vast difference between asking new questions of Scripture and superimposing meaning on Scripture." What say ye? CMI say it has been done before in major cases, two of which I've already elaborated upon in this thread:
- geocentrism
- spontaneous generation
@reformed said:
Which video, apparetnly I missed the link.This one:
There is no evidence that there is reason to believe Moses understood the creation week as anything different than six literal days. He is saying God did the same work week as we do now, one day of rest. That being said, Jesus uses Genesis as literal historical accounts much throughout the Gospels. Therefore, if he takes it to be literal, why would Gen 1 be any different?
I consider the day age view as literal, with the meaning of yom being a long period of time.
The LXX also translates it as bitumen.
There is debate of course about this since the word is rare and mostly unused. That being said, bitumen is the way the LXX translated it, but I would encourage you to look at ALL of the definitions of bitumen. Pine Tar would still suffice. We also don't know every substance that was available prior to the flood.
We also don't know whether pine tar would fall under bitumen in Greek, even if it does in English. We don't even know whether in the Bronze age Middle East people knew how to make pine tar. There were plenty of tar pits in post-flood Canaan (Genesis 14:10 for example), so Moses and the Israelites wouldn't have had any need to go through the process and make pine tar. Therefore, when Moses wrote about pitch, fossile pitch is what he meant, as it is the substance that everyone was familiar with.
In any case, the literal meaning of pitch, tar or bitumen would be that of a fossile substance. And literal meaning is what we're talking about, isn't it? And if not, why is it that you can interpret pitch as non-literal, but cant do the same with "yom"?
-
@Jan said:
@C_M_ said:
The self-sufficiency of Scripture of which we have spoken does not mean that any question raised from other areas of investigation such as science, history, sociology and so on cannot be discussed with reference to Scripture. But there is a vast difference between asking new questions of Scripture and superimposing meaning on Scripture." What say ye? CMI say it has been done before in major cases, two of which I've already elaborated upon in this thread:
- geocentrism
- spontaneous generation
@reformed said:
Which video, apparetnly I missed the link.This one:
There is no evidence that there is reason to believe Moses understood the creation week as anything different than six literal days. He is saying God did the same work week as we do now, one day of rest. That being said, Jesus uses Genesis as literal historical accounts much throughout the Gospels. Therefore, if he takes it to be literal, why would Gen 1 be any different?
I consider the day age view as literal, with the meaning of yom being a long period of time.
The LXX also translates it as bitumen.
There is debate of course about this since the word is rare and mostly unused. That being said, bitumen is the way the LXX translated it, but I would encourage you to look at ALL of the definitions of bitumen. Pine Tar would still suffice. We also don't know every substance that was available prior to the flood.
We also don't know whether pine tar would fall under bitumen in Greek, even if it does in English. We don't even know whether in the Bronze age Middle East people knew how to make pine tar. There were plenty of tar pits in post-flood Canaan (Genesis 14:10 for example), so Moses and the Israelites wouldn't have had any need to go through the process and make pine tar. Therefore, when Moses wrote about pitch, fossile pitch is what he meant, as it is the substance that everyone was familiar with.
In any case, the literal meaning of pitch, tar or bitumen would be that of a fossile substance. And literal meaning is what we're talking about, isn't it? And if not, why is it that you can interpret pitch as non-literal, but cant do the same with "yom"?
@Jan said:
@C_M_ said:
The self-sufficiency of Scripture of which we have spoken does not mean that any question raised from other areas of investigation such as science, history, sociology and so on cannot be discussed with reference to Scripture. But there is a vast difference between asking new questions of Scripture and superimposing meaning on Scripture." What say ye? CMI say it has been done before in major cases, two of which I've already elaborated upon in this thread:
- geocentrism
- spontaneous generation
@reformed said:
Which video, apparetnly I missed the link.This one:
There is no evidence that there is reason to believe Moses understood the creation week as anything different than six literal days. He is saying God did the same work week as we do now, one day of rest. That being said, Jesus uses Genesis as literal historical accounts much throughout the Gospels. Therefore, if he takes it to be literal, why would Gen 1 be any different?
I consider the day age view as literal, with the meaning of yom being a long period of time.
The LXX also translates it as bitumen.
There is debate of course about this since the word is rare and mostly unused. That being said, bitumen is the way the LXX translated it, but I would encourage you to look at ALL of the definitions of bitumen. Pine Tar would still suffice. We also don't know every substance that was available prior to the flood.
We also don't know whether pine tar would fall under bitumen in Greek, even if it does in English. We don't even know whether in the Bronze age Middle East people knew how to make pine tar. There were plenty of tar pits in post-flood Canaan (Genesis 14:10 for example), so Moses and the Israelites wouldn't have had any need to go through the process and make pine tar. Therefore, when Moses wrote about pitch, fossile pitch is what he meant, as it is the substance that everyone was familiar with.
In any case, the literal meaning of pitch, tar or bitumen would be that of a fossile substance. And literal meaning is what we're talking about, isn't it? And if not, why is it that you can interpret pitch as non-literal, but cant do the same with "yom"?
We don't know the literal meaning of the first usage of the word. We do know the meaning of yom. That is the difference. 13 billion years just doesn't make sense nor does it line up with Scripture.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
As an astronomy buff...Mmmmm
-
@Jan said:
I say it has been done before in major cases, two of which I've already elaborated upon in this thread:
* Geocentrism
* Spontaneous GenerationJan,
Has modern science the know-how and the instruments to test and explain how long it takes to “create” a solar system such as ours with its multiform life?We seem to forget that science can observe and measure only the ongoing processes of conservation and disintegration. In fact, modern science by assuming that these ongoing processes have always functioned in the past essentially as in the present (uniformitarianism) excludes the possibility of a divine fiat (spoken-into-existence) process.
The problem is we can't reconcile the creation-week with modern theories of origin. There are many attempts to conciliate the Biblical teaching of a Divine creation with the prevailing scientific view of spontaneous generation.
Needless to say, it is impossible to harmonize the two, since the two views rest on entirely different premises.
- The latter, spontaneous generation-- accepts only natural causes.
The former, Divine creation -- acknowledges God as the Supernatural Cause:
“By faith, we understand that the world was created by the word of God so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (Heb. 11:3).
Honor the Lord! Don't give credit of heaven's wonderful works of the Creator to the created (Lucifer or a man). What a blasphemy! CM
-
MORE SENSE, TO SCIENTIFIC'S NONSENSE
It is noteworthy that leading religious thinkers regard “the recovery of belief in God the Creator” as the “key” to the solution of the environmental crisis. Science and technology, by undermining the belief in God the Creator, have reduced the desire to rejoice over the goodness of God’s creation. By substituting the belief in a personal divine creation with the notion of an impersonal spontaneous generation, scientists have reduced nature and all its constituent forms to be objects that technology can use and control. Nature has been pared from being a mediator of divine revelation (a “thou”) to serving as a means of economic exploitation (an “it”).
Eric C. Rust, writes, “Our scientific atmosphere, has nullified the desire to rejoice and celebrate and reduced nature and all its constituent creatures to ‘Its.’ We do not see them as ‘Thous’ but as objects which science and technology can use and control. They have become means to our economic ends rather than ends in themselves. We have forgotten that our God rejoiced in his creation and declared it to be good because it contained potentially the possibilities for the realization of his purpose”.
What say ye? CM
SOURCE:
Eric C. Rust, Nature: Garden or Desert, 1971, p. 133 -
@Jan said:
I do believe the creation account literally. "Yom" can be literally translated as a long period of time.I literally believe that God created ex nihilo whenever the Hebrew word "bara" is used, in Genesis 1:1 (the heavens and the earth, i.e. the cosmos), Genesis 1:21 (animals) and Genesis 1:27 (mankind).
When the word "asa" is used, I believe that God made something from pre-existing matter, or made it to appear visibly (such as the sun, moon and stars which pre-existed, but "appeared" visibly only after the plants had been cleaning the atmosphere for some million years).
I believe in the literal place Eden, and Adam and Eve as the literal first people, and reject all kinds of evolution models, including theistic evolution.
---------------------------- Reality Check --------------------------
Jan,Few of the world's inhabitants believe the Creation story as outlined in Scripture. Most of the world's leading thinkers and scientists, even Christian thinkers, hold to some sort of evolutionary concept:
1. One view is Theistic Evolution, or Progressive Creation, which teaches that God was involved through natural processes over long periods of time in bringing our world into being.
2. Another view is the Dualistic Theory that matter has eternity of existence just as God does.
3. The Emanation Theory sees the universe as the same substance as God, issuing from Him during an evolving process.
4. The concept of Spontaneous Generation suggests that under right conditions matter can generate new forms with new functions.Such views do not do justice to the biblical account of the difference between Creator and creature, or the record that God was not dependent upon pre-existing matter in His acts of creation.
God was not dependent upon preexisting matter to create planet Earth. (See Heb. 11:3.)
The universe was created by Christ, the eternally self-existent God.
Creation of our world occurred during six literal days, followed by a twenty-four hour Sabbath ("rest") memorial. The Creation doctrine is the foundation upon which rests the sovereignty of God. Christ's love for humankind exhibited in the re-creation process is the greatest evidence that special creation took place as recorded in Genesis.
Jan,
Are you sure you're completely divested from all Evolutionary Theories? CM -
@reformed said:
@Jan said:
Moses compares the creation week (6 yoms) with the work week (6 different yoms). I don't see a contradiction.
As for your quote from Matthew, please elaborate how you come to the conclusion that Jesus interprets Genesis 1 as six 24-hour-days.There is no evidence that there is reason to believe Moses understood the creation week as anything different than six literal days. He is saying God did the same work week as we do now, one day of rest. That being said, Jesus uses Genesis as literal historical accounts much throughout the Gospels. Therefore, if he takes it to be literal, why would Gen 1 be any different?
Jan & Reformed,
Jesus fully supports the Genesis record. See Matt. 19:4.- The earth is a minute portion of God's creation.
- "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Col. 1:16).
- It's simple, He created it. Come on, God is not an absent-minded Creator. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Jan said:
I say it has been done before in major cases, two of which I've already elaborated upon in this thread:
* Geocentrism
* Spontaneous GenerationJan,
Has modern science the know-how and the instruments to test and explain how long it takes to “create” a solar system such as ours with its multiform life?We seem to forget that science can observe and measure only the ongoing processes of conservation and disintegration. In fact, modern science by assuming that these ongoing processes have always functioned in the past essentially as in the present (uniformitarianism) excludes the possibility of a divine fiat (spoken-into-existence) process.
The problem is we can't reconcile the creation-week with modern theories of origin. There are many attempts to conciliate the Biblical teaching of a Divine creation with the prevailing scientific view of spontaneous generation.
Needless to say, it is impossible to harmonize the two, since the two views rest on entirely different premises.
- The latter, spontaneous generation-- accepts only natural causes.
The former, Divine creation -- acknowledges God as the Supernatural Cause:
“By faith, we understand that the world was created by the word of God so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (Heb. 11:3).
Honor the Lord! Don't give credit of heaven's wonderful works of the Creator to the created (Lucifer or a man). What a blasphemy! CM
This is a great point. We can't observe the past because it already happened. So we make assumptions based on what we see today. However, we have an EYEWITNESS account of what happened in God's word.
-
@reformed said:
This is a great point. We can't observe the past because it already happened. So we make assumptions based on what we see today. However, we have an EYEWITNESS account of what happened in God's word.Yes ... as long as we understand correctly what the account in Scripture tells. Seems to me that the whole discussion in this thread is about determining the correct understanding of that account, yes?
-
`> @reformed said:
This is a great point. We can't observe the past because it already happened. So we make assumptions based on what we see today. However, we have an EYEWITNESS account of what happened in God's word.
If the speed of light were infinite, then yes, we wouldn't be able to observe the past. Light from distant celestial objects - such as the Andromeda galaxy, which is approx. 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from the earth - would reach us instantly. We would witness celestial activity live, as it happened.
But the speed of light is NOT infinite. It's VERY fast(!) but takes time to travel between distant locations. Light from our sun, for example, doesn't reach us immediately; it takes a bit more than eight minutes to reach us. Hence, we don't see the sun as it is. We see the sun as it was eight-plus minutes ago. Were the sun to stop shining right now, we wouldn't know it for eight minutes.
Similarly, we don't see distant celestial objects the way they ARE. We see them the way they WERE. Andromeda is far enough from us that its light takes 2.5 million years to get here. We see the galaxy as it was in the past, not how it today is. And in astronomical terms, Andromeda is a next door neighbor! We recently discovered a galaxy whose light has been traveling for more than 13 billion years, for example - the way it WAS long, long, long ago.
The concept of observing the past can be challenging, so consider a simple sensory experience we've all had, or heard about. Fans in the upper decks of a major league baseball stadium see a batter hit the ball, then witness the first instants of the ball's flight. But those fans hear the whack of the bat associated with that hit an instant AFTER they see the hit itself. They SEE the hit before they HEAR the hit! That means they're hearing the past, an event that actually happened a fraction of a second earlier.
Why does that happen? Because the speed of sound is not infinite; it takes time for sound to travel between locations. Light is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster than sound, but it's not infinitely fast. It still takes time for light to travel between locations. On earth we don't notice it because light covers earthly distances in an apparent instant (light can travel around the earth more seven times in one second!) But cosmic distances - between galaxies, for example - light does not, CANNOT, cover instantly. Hence, we see the cosmos as it was in the past, not as it currently is.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
`> @reformed said:This is a great point. We can't observe the past because it already happened. So we make assumptions based on what we see today. However, we have an EYEWITNESS account of what happened in God's word.
If the speed of light were infinite, then yes, we wouldn't be able to observe the past. Light from distant celestial objects - such as the Andromeda galaxy, which is approx. 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from the earth - would reach us instantly. We would witness celestial activity live, as it happened.
But the speed of light is NOT infinite. It's VERY fast(!) but takes time to travel between distant locations. Light from our sun, for example, doesn't reach us immediately; it takes a bit more than eight minutes to reach us. Hence, we don't see the sun as it is. We see the sun as it was eight-plus minutes ago. Were the sun to stop shining right now, we wouldn't know it for eight minutes.
Similarly, we don't see distant celestial objects the way they ARE. We see them the way they WERE. Andromeda is far enough from us that its light takes 2.5 million years to get here. We see the galaxy as it was in the past, not how it today is. And in astronomical terms, Andromeda is a next door neighbor! We recently discovered a galaxy whose light has been traveling for more than 13 billion years, for example - the way it WAS long, long, long ago.
The concept of observing the past can be challenging, so consider a simple sensory experience we've all had, or heard about. Fans in the upper decks of a major league baseball stadium see a batter hit the ball, then witness the first instants of the ball's flight. But those fans hear the whack of the bat associated with that hit an instant AFTER they see the hit itself. They SEE the hit before they HEAR the hit! That means they're hearing the past, an event that actually happened a fraction of a second earlier.
Why does that happen? Because the speed of sound is not infinite; it takes time for sound to travel between locations. Light is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster than sound, but it's not infinitely fast. It still takes time for light to travel between locations. On earth we don't notice it because light covers earthly distances in an apparent instant (light can travel around the earth more seven times in one second!) But cosmic distances - between galaxies, for example - light does not, CANNOT, cover instantly. Hence, we see the cosmos as it was in the past, not as it currently is.
You are still making assumptions though that the light was NOT created to be that way
-
@reformed said:
You are still making assumptions though that the light was NOT created to be that way
I'm not sure what you mean, reformed. Whether light was created to travel at a finite speed does not change the facts that light travels at a finite speed and that because light travels at a finite speed, we see celestial objects as they were, not as they are. In other words and contrary to your previous claim, we DO observe the past. In fact, when it comes to celestial objects, we have no choice but to observe the past.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You are still making assumptions though that the light was NOT created to be that way
I'm not sure what you mean, reformed. Whether light was created to travel at a finite speed does not change the facts that light travels at a finite speed and that because light travels at a finite speed, we see celestial objects as they were, not as they are. In other words and contrary to your previous claim, we DO observe the past. In fact, when it comes to celestial objects, we have no choice but to observe the past.
But you do not necessarily observe origination of all celestial bodies, only those that were not part of original creation.
-
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?
-
@Dave_L said:
One major point we overlook is that scripture produces faith. And science produces doubt unless it squares with scripture. So I always go with faith even if it is repulsive to others.I've made the experience that there really is no need to be scared of science. Science is based on the observation of creation, through which God reveals himself. Therefore, science is just another means for strengthening one's faith.
However, science is just an interpretation of the observations, and scientists mostly presuppose a naturalistic world view, so that science needs to be "filtered" so that it squares with scripture.
When you remove the presupposition of a naturalistic world view, circular arguments, and far too frequently incorrect facts, whatever remains, in most cases, outright points to the Creator, independent of the discipline (biology, physics, astronomy, palaeontology, anthropology, archaeology etc.)
@C_M_ said:
Few of the world's inhabitants believe the Creation story as outlined in Scripture. Most of the world's leading thinkers and scientists, even Christian thinkers, hold to some sort of evolutionary concept:
1. One view is Theistic Evolution, or Progressive Creation, which teaches that God was involved through natural processes over long periods of time in bringing our world into being.
2. Another view is the Dualistic Theory that matter has eternity of existence just as God does.
3. The Emanation Theory sees the universe as the same substance as God, issuing from Him during an evolving process.
4. The concept of Spontaneous Generation suggests that under right conditions matter can generate new forms with new functions.Such views do not do justice to the biblical account of the difference between Creator and creature, or the record that God was not dependent upon pre-existing matter in His acts of creation.
God was not dependent upon preexisting matter to create planet Earth. (See Heb. 11:3.)
The universe was created by Christ, the eternally self-existent God.
Creation of our world occurred during six literal days, followed by a twenty-four hour Sabbath ("rest") memorial. The Creation doctrine is the foundation upon which rests the sovereignty of God. Christ's love for humankind exhibited in the re-creation process is the greatest evidence that special creation took place as recorded in Genesis.
Jan,
Are you sure you're completely divested from all Evolutionary Theories? CMProgressive Creation pretty much sums up my view. It does include the view that God works through natural processes, including some mild microevolution. (Since he is omnipotent, God could have placed a planet made ready for human habitation into the solar system within the blink of an eye, but I believe he chose to use a lot of natural processes to prepare the planet just for us.)
In fact, YEC supposes a lot stronger and faster rate of microevolution than progressive creationism, or even Darwinism, since it suggests, for example, that all the various species of cat evolved from that one pair of cats that was on Noah's ark.
Heb. 11:3 I believe is about the pre big bang state, when there was nothing (no space, no time, no matter, no energy - nothing visible at all). Creation started with the big bang. No scientist has been able to explain the big bang without presupposing some pre-existing elements (the law of gravity, some sort of quantum vacuum or similar), for which they are not able to explain the origin.
@reformed said:
You are still making assumptions though that the light was NOT created to be that wayAnd again, I encourage you to watch the video, Danny Faulkner (world's leading YEC astronomer) vs. Hugh Ross (world's leading OEC astronomer), both of whom are godly men who I greatly respect.
This is simply no assumption, but plain fact.
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?I believe I have. Equalling the Adam factor with the universe factor leads into absurdity.
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?I believe I have. Equalling the Adam factor with the universe factor leads into absurdity.
No, that statement is what is absurd. Why can God create Adam with age, but not everything else? That makes no sense.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
One major point we overlook is that scripture produces faith. And science produces doubt unless it squares with scripture. So I always go with faith even if it is repulsive to others.I've made the experience that there really is no need to be scared of science. Science is based on the observation of creation, through which God reveals himself. Therefore, science is just another means for strengthening one's faith.
However, science is just an interpretation of the observations, and scientists mostly presuppose a naturalistic world view, so that science needs to be "filtered" so that it squares with scripture.
When you remove the presupposition of a naturalistic world view, circular arguments, and far too frequently incorrect facts, whatever remains, in most cases, outright points to the Creator, independent of the discipline (biology, physics, astronomy, palaeontology, anthropology, archaeology etc.)
I agree. And this is why I said unless science squares with the bible it will deteriorate faith instead of aiding it. For instants, I believe Peter describes the second anticipated big bang when he says the heavens will pass away with a great noise. And the elements will melt with a fervent heat. But I also believe Moses defines his use of "days" in the daily breakdown of the creation account as being what we call 24 hour periods. These became the "day" when God created the heavens and earth. And Jesus says from the beginning God created male and female ruling out vast expanses of time before humans appeared.
I'm sure true science will always square with true bible interpretation.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
One major point we overlook is that scripture produces faith. And science produces doubt unless it squares with scripture. So I always go with faith even if it is repulsive to others.I've made the experience that there really is no need to be scared of science. Science is based on the observation of creation, through which God reveals himself. Therefore, science is just another means for strengthening one's faith.
However, science is just an interpretation of the observations, and scientists mostly presuppose a naturalistic world view, so that science needs to be "filtered" so that it squares with scripture.
When you remove the presupposition of a naturalistic world view, circular arguments, and far too frequently incorrect facts, whatever remains, in most cases, outright points to the Creator, independent of the discipline (biology, physics, astronomy, palaeontology, anthropology, archaeology etc.)
@C_M_ said:
Few of the world's inhabitants believe the Creation story as outlined in Scripture. Most of the world's leading thinkers and scientists, even Christian thinkers, hold to some sort of evolutionary concept:
1. One view is Theistic Evolution, or Progressive Creation, which teaches that God was involved through natural processes over long periods of time in bringing our world into being.
2. Another view is the Dualistic Theory that matter has eternity of existence just as God does.
3. The Emanation Theory sees the universe as the same substance as God, issuing from Him during an evolving process.
4. The concept of Spontaneous Generation suggests that under right conditions matter can generate new forms with new functions.Such views do not do justice to the biblical account of the difference between Creator and creature, or the record that God was not dependent upon pre-existing matter in His acts of creation.
God was not dependent upon preexisting matter to create planet Earth. (See Heb. 11:3.)
The universe was created by Christ, the eternally self-existent God.
Creation of our world occurred during six literal days, followed by a twenty-four hour Sabbath ("rest") memorial. The Creation doctrine is the foundation upon which rests the sovereignty of God. Christ's love for humankind exhibited in the re-creation process is the greatest evidence that special creation took place as recorded in Genesis.
Jan,
Are you sure you're completely divested from all Evolutionary Theories? CMProgressive Creation pretty much sums up my view. It does include the view that God works through natural processes, including some mild microevolution. (Since he is omnipotent, God could have placed a planet made ready for human habitation into the solar system within the blink of an eye, but I believe he chose to use a lot of natural processes to prepare the planet just for us.)
In fact, YEC supposes a lot stronger and faster rate of microevolution than progressive creationism, or even Darwinism, since it suggests, for example, that all the various species of cat evolved from that one pair of cats that was on Noah's ark.
Heb. 11:3 I believe is about the pre big bang state, when there was nothing (no space, no time, no matter, no energy - nothing visible at all). Creation started with the big bang. No scientist has been able to explain the big bang without presupposing some pre-existing elements (the law of gravity, some sort of quantum vacuum or similar), for which they are not able to explain the origin.
@reformed said:
You are still making assumptions though that the light was NOT created to be that wayAnd again, I encourage you to watch the video, Danny Faulkner (world's leading YEC astronomer) vs. Hugh Ross (world's leading OEC astronomer), both of whom are godly men who I greatly respect.
This is simply no assumption, but plain fact.
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?I believe I have. Equalling the Adam factor with the universe factor leads into absurdity.
Much "science" though is NOT based on observation of creation. Evolution (macro) is a prime example. It is based on wanting to write God out of the story.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?My view is that the Genesis creation accounts are worshipful testimonies of faith, not literal histories of creation. Hence, I believe Adam and Eve are literary, not historical, figures, and the purpose of the accounts is theological, not scientific.
The accounts are decidedly geocentric, which is not surprising given the state of scientific knowledge at the time of their writing. But we know more now. We know more about the creation of galaxies and their components, including planets such as ours and people such as us. We know the universe is mind-alteringly large, each of its pieces the product of processes, not instantaneous events.
In my view, however, the writers of the Genesis accounts had no clue or concern about issues such as creation "with age." Compelled to opine on the matter, my strong suspicion is the authors would have asserted that God created the earth and its residents - including humans - with age. Informed by the insight of the last 2,500-3,000 years of scientific progress, however, the writers, in good faith, might well have changed their view.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?My view is that the Genesis creation accounts are worshipful testimonies of faith, not literal histories of creation. Hence, I believe Adam and Eve are literary, not historical, figures, and the purpose of the accounts is theological, not scientific.
The accounts are decidedly geocentric, which is not surprising given the state of scientific knowledge at the time of their writing. But we know more now. We know more about the creation of galaxies and their components, including planets such as ours and people such as us. We know the universe is mind-alteringly large, each of its pieces the product of processes, not instantaneous events.
In my view, however, the writers of the Genesis accounts had no clue or concern about issues such as creation "with age." Compelled to opine on the matter, my strong suspicion is the authors would have asserted that God created the earth and its residents - including humans - with age. Informed by the insight of the last 2,500-3,000 years of scientific progress, however, the writers, in good faith, might well have changed their view.
God wrote the Bible. I think he knew better than anyone. There is zero evidence that the Genesis account is not a literal history.
-
@reformed said:
God wrote the Bible. I think he knew better than anyone.Careful, careful ... Did God write the Bible? or did God inspire elected men of God to write what they wrote using their vocabulary, language, etc? I'd say that the latter is true. I also would agree that God knows better than anyone.
There is zero evidence that the Genesis account is not a literal history.
Careful again ... trying to argue from "NO evidence of what it is NOT ..." ??
Instead, what textual evidence Is there that the Genesis account is to be understood literally? or what textual evidence is there that the Genesis account is to be understood as involving figures of speech and is not meant in a literal sense?
-
MORE TRUTH FROM LEADING SCIENTISTS IN THE BELIEF OF A SIX-DAY CREATION
Many scientists today believe in God. A study published revealed that 39.3 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God they can pray to. How many of these scientists also believe in Creation? Scientists with a doctorate degree who believed in special creation and belief in a literal six-day creation. They "present reasons why highly educated people who have studied science, who are familiar with scientific methods and who are able to critically evaluate scientific data believe in creation." The list of leading scientists includes:
1. D. B. Gower, Emeritus Professor of Steroid Biochemistry at the University of London
2. Ker Thomson, former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory
3. E. A. Boudreaux, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans
4. W.J. Veith, Chairman of the Zoology Department at the University of Western Cape, South Africa
5. W. Gitt, Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Germany
6. K. Wanser, Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton.It has been proven that highly educated people do believe in creation. They give reasons that are well thought out and scientifically valid.
Jeremy Walter—head of Engineering Analysis and Design at the Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, USA—addresses this issue: "Many intelligent people are thoroughly convinced that science has proven the earth to be billions of years old. How can they be wrong? The misconception builds on a neglect of the basic nature of 'science' and a natural desire for moral autonomy. Actually, the age of the earth can be neither proved nor disproved by science."
The obstacles to believing in creation, such as: How could such huge masses of molten rock cool so quickly? Andrew Snelling, a geologist, questioned. What about radioactive dating? Many scientists can show the inconsistencies amongst the various dating methods and the overlooked flaws in premises upon which assumptions are made.
Dr. Ashton noted, "Extrapolating back in time isn't a very easy thing to do in science, given that there are so many complex interactions that we just don't know about. I think that is why the debate has continued for so long.
"Really, neither side has access to definitive information of what actually happened at that time. I believe that Christians have an advantage in that we believe that there was an observer and that He has revealed that A through the prophets old."
Consider the argument of "irreducible complexities." Meaning that "the ecosystems are such that if you remove parts of them—like the operations of the human cell or the development of a feather or many parts of nature—the whole system fails.
"The single best argument against evolution is in the DNA code. There's no known mechanism whereby random effects can produce an increase in information. Randomly typing things on a typewriter does not produce a science textbook. There must have been some driving force, which is intelligent."
John Marcus, a biochemist: "When an archaeologist comes across a smooth cylindrical clay structure with walls consistently about the same thickness, a flat bottom that allows the structure to stand upright, and an opening in the top, it is a sure sign to them that some type of intelligent civilisation was responsible for producing that clay pot. It is such a simple deduction to make; it is obvious that an ordered structure such as a clay pot could not have come about by chance. One can see that even the smallest amount of order exhibited in a simple clay pot is almost completely beyond the reach of random processes. That is why archaeologists know that a clay pot is a clear signature of civilization; orderliness is evidence of design."
The belief in a literal six-day creation, every week, we are reminded that we are here by design, not by chance. One's belief in creation as the Bible reveals can stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Reconsider Bible truth, the way of understanding. CM
Sources:
-- NATURE in 1997
-- Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition), 2008 -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley you and @Jan still have not addressed the Adam factor. If Adam was created with age and not as a baby, why would the rest of creation necessarily be any different?My view is that the Genesis creation accounts are worshipful testimonies of faith, not literal histories of creation. Hence, I believe Adam and Eve are literary, not historical, figures, and the purpose of the accounts is theological, not scientific...
Bill,
Is this an admission that the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God? Your description above seems to make the Bible an ordinary and common book. The Bible seems to be reduced to a book among books.Have we forgotten that the Bible is a part of Divine Revelation by way of "Special Revelation"? That is God's disclosure of unique knowledge through chosen agents or special acts: Miracles & prophecy, Scriptures, and Jesus Christ.
"Inspiration" (Gk. "Theopneustos"-- God-breathed") from 2 Tim. 3:16. Have you forgotten, inspiration is used to designate the recording of truth? Hold your horses, I know it is possible to have a revelation without inspiration. However, the Bible is not such a work (Rev. 10: 3-4).
When one contrast all this with "General Revelation", the "Genesis creation accounts" are far more than just a "worshipful testimonies of faith", and it does cover the "literal history of creation".
What are you thinking? You may want to re-think or re-consider your position on this matter. CM
-
@reformed said:
Much "science" though is NOT based on observation of creation. Evolution (macro) is a prime example. It is based on wanting to write God out of the story.The scientific method, which among many other things, has discovered cures for diseases and the core structure of matter, doesn't care about God's role in the story, reformed.
In my view, your response here is rooted in a misappropriation of the relationship of science and faith, which respond to distinctly different questions.
- Science addresses process and function questions - How do things work? How does the universe function? How do human bodies operate? - None of those questions is intrinsically theological. Each can be pursued without infringement on God's role and function. (Jonas Salk didn't violate God's domain when he discovered a cure for polio.)
- Faith addresses purpose and intention questions - Why do bad things happen to good people? What is the meaning of life? What is my purpose on earth? None of those questions is intrinsically scientific. Each can be pursued without infringement on science's mission field.
There are grey areas, I think - human cloning, for instance - but in general the dividing line between science and faith is clear.
The theory of evolution accounts for the development of species across millions of years, and does so to the (granted, incomplete) satisfaction of the vast majority of professional scientists. You have every right to object to the methodology and/or conclusions of the science that produced and developed the theory over the last 150 years or so. But given the clear distinction between science's and faith's missions, rooting your objections to scientific results in theology, it seems to me, is not warranted.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Much "science" though is NOT based on observation of creation. Evolution (macro) is a prime example. It is based on wanting to write God out of the story.The scientific method, which among many other things, has discovered cures for diseases and the core structure of matter, doesn't care about God's role in the story, reformed.
In my view, your response here is rooted in a misappropriation of the relationship of science and faith, which respond to distinctly different questions.
- Science addresses process and function questions - How do things work? How does the universe function? How do human bodies operate? - None of those questions is intrinsically theological. Each can be pursued without infringement on God's role and function. (Jonas Salk didn't violate God's domain when he discovered a cure for polio.)
- Faith addresses purpose and intention questions - Why do bad things happen to good people? What is the meaning of life? What is my purpose on earth? None of those questions is intrinsically scientific. Each can be pursued without infringement on science's mission field.
There are grey areas, I think - human cloning, for instance - but in general the dividing line between science and faith is clear.
The theory of evolution accounts for the development of species across millions of years, and does so to the (granted, incomplete) satisfaction of the vast majority of professional scientists. You have every right to object to the methodology and/or conclusions of the science that produced and developed the theory over the last 150 years or so. But given the clear distinction between science's and faith's missions, rooting your objections to scientific results in theology, it seems to me, is not warranted.
You actually cannot employ the scientific theory for evolution.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
