Creation question.....

[Grymir]

O.k. I have to chime in.

1. "the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth is far older than 10,000 years does help our understanding of the Genesis 1 account." This is faulty at best. Letting the world determine what the bible says?? If a person doesn't know the faults of the dating methods to justify this position, I will be glad to start a thread to show these. Most of the methods have faulty premises that assume an old earth. i.e., assuming pure uranium parent-daughter ratio's in dating methods. And the so called dating depending on how deep we dig, well these people assume the flood never happened. A flood would lay levels like the so called archaeologists claim are "millions" of years and would explain the fact that fossils even exist at all.

2. Animal deaths before fall?? There were no carnivores before the fall. Read Gen 1:30. "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every GREEN HERB for meat: and it was so." Therefore, vegetarian was the way. (Don't worry, after the flood, God said we could eat meat, so enjoy that steak.) Also, the phrasing of life within itself refers to plants, so they do not die like living creatures do.

3. Exegesis is not compatible with old earth. I.e. " But this goes to show that you are reading post-fall scientific presuppositions back into the text." is rampant in the old earth presupposition. What does Geneva have to do with Darwin??

4. And yes, dragons equals dinosaurs. They are to be killed by knights to rescue damsels in distress. Probably more true than is given credit.

 

[A5pointer]

we all know that there was no need to eat before the fall

 

[RamistThomist]

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."

 

[Gloria]

Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...

So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

1. The 2 Peter 3 quote is truncated. Look at the whole verse and the context. It gives no quarter for the use to which old agers put it in Genesis.

2. The contextual literary cues in Genesis 1 militate against an indefinite period of time.
a. "yom" is defined in its two literal senses when it appears first in the Bible (i.e., the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle).
b. the use of the markers "evening" and "morning" denote a straight forward kind of day.
c. the presence of the terms "first day," "second day," etc. denote ordinary days.

3. The institution of the sabbath in Exodus 20 depends upon a literal reading of Genesis 1. Attempting to differentiate the earlier days from the later days only surfaces from the side of those desperately attempting to find 3.5 billion "missing" years.

Thanks for the bolded point.

 

[A5pointer]

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."

Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What does Geneva have to do with Darwin??

 

[A5pointer]

we all know that there was no need to eat before the fall

Not true. In fact, there is explicit provision for such. "Of all the trees in the garden you may freely eat..." However, eating fruit that's provided from a tree hardly kills the tree, now does it? Furthermore, I think Creation Research Society or somebody has distinguished between "life" as found in plants, and that of life that is found in animals and humans.

I hear you and am sorry for making lite of it. I do not wish to be contenteous over this issue. It seems to be all speculation on this issue. An issue that in my opinion does not shed light on the bigger issue. Sorry again.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."

Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.

I don't consider plants "sentient beings."

In short, I don't believe the animals were eating each other. Given my presuppositions about ontology, this seems normal. If it is absurd, how much more so in the eschaton

Isaiah 11:6-9:

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

 

[A5pointer]

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."

Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.

I don't consider plants "sentient beings."

In short, I don't believe the animals were eating each other. Given my presuppositions about ontology, this seems normal. If it is absurd, how much more so in the eschaton

Isaiah 11:6-9:

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Makes sense total sense to me. I went into this corner with much haste. Thank you.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Several points

Rather than responding to each post individually, here are some thoughts addressing several issues:

1. The issue of death before the Fall is a major rabbit trail, and is irrelevant to the "nature of days." Even if I were a YE creationist, I would still believe in death before the Fall. The problem with the view that there was no death before the Fall is that there is no Scripture to support it. It also defies logic. To specifically address some things that were said:

Joshua - to somehow argue that by eating fruit only there was no death is both directly against Scripture ("every green herb" along with "every tree") and scientifically irrational. Fruits were once "living" with billions of cells each. The cells had to die for the fruit to ripen and of course when eaten. Are cells not considered living? If not, where do you draw the line between living and not living? It is an impossible distinction to make. Thus there was, without doubt, death before the Fall, as the very least on the cellular level.

Ivanhoe - your Isaiah verse is taken out of context. Those verses are in reference to a prophecy, a Messianic prophecy in fact, which illustrates in vivid terms the peace the Christ will ultimately bring. Nowhere does it imply or state this was the condition of original creation. Also, when did the idea of "sentient" beings become a legitimate theological term, especially since the concept has its origins in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? Nowhere in the Bible is moral or spiritual weight given to any creature other than humans, into whom God breathed the "breath of life." There is no gradation of moral weight in the animal and plant worlds. This point has absolutely no Scriptural basis, and I would argue is thoroughly anti-Biblical in nature. And as I pointed out in Joshua's post, there is no place to draw the line. Do you draw the line with insects? Fish? Cows? Birds? Certain species of birds? Certain species of reptiles? Of mammals? Furthermore, how do you arrive at death in terms of "spilled blood?" Fleas and mites have lifespans of a few days - they need not have their blood spilled in order to die. Once again, you have no Biblical basis to support your claim, and it defies basic logic.

Gymir - Genesis 1:30 doesn't necessarily exclude carnivores, since it never mentions water animals and never says animals on ground would eat ONLY herbs. But let's say you're right, and there were no carnivores. It still does not say there was no animal death - only that animals didn't eat each other.

2. While some dating techniques have flaws in terms of their accuracy at various ages, most are reliable enough to indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Christian scientists who try to find flaws with all these techniqes lose credibility because they selectively choose what they consider negative qualities as if to discredit the methodology as a whole. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Earth is 4.4 billion years old, or even millions, but it's pretty safe to say accurate, reliable tests indicate it is older than 10,000. We can of course discuss this topic more if you wish, Grymir, but I would encourage you to really research this topic and understand it before supporting certain claims you may have read.

3. This point of this thread (at least it seems to me) is to discuss the exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible in terms of Old Earth and Young Earth creationism. There are certainly arguments for both, but neither is absolutely conclusive or fatally flawed. The reason I posted initially and the reason I think this topic is interesting is because so many YECers are so very ardent in their defense of the 24 hr day view. But why? I have no problem with the YEC view, and believe it could very well be correct. But there seems to be no room for allowance for the OEC view, even when there is certainly Biblical and scientific evidence to support it as strong or stronger than the YEC view. No one has really answered this question: Does it change anything if the OEC view is correct? I fail to see how it does. God is just as great, His creation just as amazing and awe-inspiring if He created it in an extended period of time, in six 24 hour days, or even instantaneously. Furthermore, it doesn't change any theology. As I've said before, an OE creationist and YE creationist can agree 100% on theology.

This is a great discussion - thanks to Ivanhoe, joshua, AV1611, grymir, CT, and many others for your great insights. I've learned a lot from what you've had to say....

 

[A5pointer]

ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Joshua,

We've each had our say, so I suppose your word is the last. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these points. But again, thank you for your informative posts. I have enjoyed and look forward to reading and learning from your thoughts on various topics in the future.

 

[RamistThomist]

ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?

Just so you won't get spammed, you might want to change that to

a 5 pointer AT aol DOT com

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

You as well as I both know that Scripture does not classify plant "death" in the same manner as animal or human death. I hate to be a copy and paste kind of guy (Sorry Jacob!), but I'll leave you with this, and I'm pretty much done with this thread as a civilian participator.

The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe

After reading the link I just want to clarify: though I am a Day Age OECer in general, I'm not in the Hugh Ross camp completely, and never have been. I do NOT believe humans evolved or died prior to the Fall. I believe humans were created specially by God (as were most other species), and did not evolve and die at all. So I do believe in animal death but not human death before the Fall, which would clearly go against Romans 5. Just wanted to be clear...

 

[ChristianTrader]

Very good article by a specialist (PhD) in Ancient History

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf

 

[A5pointer]

ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?

Just so you won't get spammed, you might want to change that to

a 5 pointer AT aol DOT com

I am the dullest tool in the shed and don't get it. Kindly exegete for me

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.

So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.

Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.

I'm missing something. I'm slow.

What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)

So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?

The text doesn't say.

Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:

We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.

The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years

So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.

We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.

Hope that helps.

Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Thanks.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.

So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.

Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.

I'm missing something. I'm slow.

What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)

So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?

The text doesn't say.

Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:

We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.

The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years

So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.

We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.

Hope that helps.

Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Thanks.

At the very least, saying morning and evening is the first day, etc. etc. gives the overwhelming burden of proof onto those who wish to say that those indicators mean absolutely nothing. Because that is what one has to say if one wants to say that such is an indefinite amount of time for those days.

Also I think very very few have ever said Yom always equals a 24 hour day. The usual claim is that it with the morning and evening indicators is always a 24 hour day.

CT

 

[A5pointer]

Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Wow, as a side note can you belive such an accomplished scholar totally checks it at the door to write a book like that? I sat right under his podium at a seminar on his book. let me say he was gracious and kind. But he admitted I was right every time I challenged him on his misuse of historic terms and use of strawmen. He even quoted Calvin out of context to lead those in attendence to believe Calvin did not hold to the system that was named after him. Amazing. I was the only Calvinist in the room. I know

 

[Grymir]

Hi BlackCalvinist!

I've answered the big question already, so I'm not gonna repeat much, but I think this quote is the crux of the issue -

"We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once."

Does the bible day mean anything other than what 'we' define it as, or, when God says day, it means day.

Enjoy!

 

[A5pointer]

Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.

So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.

What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)

So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?

The text doesn't say.

Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:

We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.

The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years

So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.

We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.

Hope that helps.

Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Thanks.

At the very least, saying morning and evening is the first day, etc. etc. gives the overwhelming burden of proof onto those who wish to say that those indicators mean absolutely nothing. Because that is what one has to say if one wants to say that such is an indefinite amount of time for those days.

Also I think very very few have ever said Yom always equals a 24 hour day. The usual claim is that it with the morning and evening indicators is always a 24 hour day.

CT

What do you make of the qualification's absence on the last day?

 

[Grymir]

One more question? Are you a nomilist or a realist?? I'm sensing something here.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Hi BlackCalvinist!

I've answered the big question already, so I'm not gonna repeat much, but I think this quote is the crux of the issue -

"We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once."

Does the bible day mean anything other than what 'we' define it as, or, when God says day, it means day.

Enjoy!

I agree, Grymir, this question is the crux of the issue. One that will never be definitely answered one way or the other until God explains it all to us one "day" in eternity...

 

[A5pointer]

One more question? Are you a nomilist or a realist?? I'm sensing something here.

Are you asking me? I do not know what either of those terms mean if you are asking me.

 

[Grymir]

Well, that's when my Nomilist/Realist question may help. (and lead this disscusion to who know where? ).

Does the word day represent an idea that is defined by man, or does the word day describe an idea that exists?

I'm not sure of the thought process that people have that are talking on this thread, And I thought that this might be an interesting way to proceed.

I was just throwing the question out, mostly to BlackCalvinist.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Well, that's when my Nomilist/Realist question may help. (and lead this disscusion to who know where? ).

Does the word day represent an idea that is defined by man, or does the word day describe an idea that exists?

I'm not sure of the thought process that people have that are talking on this thread, And I thought that this might be an interesting way to proceed.

I was just throwing the question out, mostly to BlackCalvinist.

By "nomilist" do you mean "nominalist?" If so, you've definitely opened a sizable can of worms, starting with exactly what you mean by nominalist, and whether you are referring to the modern or Reformation era definition. But really I don't know that it matters in this case, because all that matters is what God defines as day in this case. And I'm not sure that changes whether you are a nominalist or realist.

 

[Grymir]

Hi Y'all, just got back from doing my husbandly duties (shopping and combating the crowd at Wal-Mart for our weekly food supplies)

Sorry for my typo, yes I meant nominalist. I didn't know there was a modern or Reformed era definition. In the loosest sense, by nominalist I would mean that words (universals) define things that have no reality except in the mind of the individual. Realism means that words (universals) describe things that really exist.

For example, gravity. A realist would hold that gravity really exists. A nominalist would hold that the word gravity just describes the particular 'effects' that we see.

These are loose definitions, but they reflect ways of thinking, which has an impact on how someone see's the world around them.

whew! My poor brain. Hopefully after dinner, I'll be able to wax eloquent a little better.

 

[hollandmin]

I love discussions like this!!

I think that you have to interpret scripture with scripture. In every other place in scripture where days are mentioned, it refers to a 24 hour period. I do not see why there would be a deviation in the first chapter of Genesis in regards to 24 hour days, when the rest of scripture clearly teaches this.

I also believe that God is God, and in the frame work of creating the heavens and the earth, He in his sovereign will, can make things work whether the sun was created first or the earth.

But that's just my .02cents

blessings,

 

[TimV]

On the first page of this thread it was mentioned that there is a difference in creation order between the first and second accounts in Genesis. That was the subject of a sermon I heard recently, that plants were created on different days, therefore the creation account is metaphorical. I re-read the accounts, and still couldn't figure out what the preacher meant, and then I realized I was reading the account from an agricultural view point.You have to assume that Moses was at least as smart as we are, and wouldn't have written something so obviously contradictory. He was also from an agricultural society, and I read it "What you have just read is the history of the earth, before there were any plants, or any people to cultivate them. There was no rain, nor anyone to disturb the soil, as God had not created man at this point, so the plants that God created on the third day were full grown plants, not seeds, which need rain and disturbed soil to grow. Rather, God created adult plants, complete with root systems."

I then went through a PCA positon paper. It's very long, but gives a good historic account of differing historical views as current disagreements in understanding Genesis. You can find it here:
PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

As the paper points out, there are more than 130 commentaries dealing with the Creation account dating from the first 14 centuries after Christ, and to my knowledge, none of them spend time dealing with supposed contradictions in the order of Creation between Genesis 1 and 2. The biggest problem dealt with having light before the sun, and the difficulty in calling something a solar day with out a sun.

I even checked a commentary from 1647 that I have by John Trapp, which isn't in many libraries, and a contradiction in Creation order just hadn't occurred to him. I also just checked the Septuagint, which is really handy for these situations and it reads really closely to how I paraphrased it to myself from a farmer's perspective. Here is the Septuagint for Genesis 2: 4-5

This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth,
and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it.
But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth.
And God formed the man of dust of the earth and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

So you can see here that clearly plants and man are created in exactly the same order as they are in Genesis 1.

In conclusion, the belief that there is a contradiction in Creation order between Genesis 1 and 2 seems very recent, and probably has to do with both a cultural divorce from the agricultural life and a simple translation issue.

 

[joeholland]

Whenever I get the Gen 1 day question folks I usually ask them, "How long do you think Moses thought a day was?"

You can imagine the conversation. On the verge of entering the promised land, a Jew comes up to Moses and says, "I have a question about that book you wrote. What is a yom?"

"A yom?", Moses asks.

"Yeah, a yom. Is it a yom-yom, a yim-yom, a 24-hour-yom, a figurative-yom, a literal-yom, or 1,000-yom's?"

"Its a yom.", says Moses as he walks away shaking his head.

This is not to discourage conversation about young-earth, old-earth, punctuated-evolutionary-equilibria, the decay of the speed of light, or any of these other things. But we should ask the question, "What did the author mean by what he wrote?"