C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Do you argue for a literal 7 days, or not for the Genesis narrative of creation?
Genesis 1:1-2:3
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Seven 24 hour days. I just don't see any necessity to step aside of or complicate the plain teaching of the text.
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
there are several excellent listing of the various positions at:
for creation-evolution-design debate spectrum of positions see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqiposs.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html
i believe that the lhaarsma's is the most complete.
however none of them sound anything like number 7 in the poll above.
i wonder if this poll is trying to prove something rather than to gauge sentiment?
what's the word i'm looking for? prejudicial language
from: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php
[Edited on 3-4-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
for creation-evolution-design debate spectrum of positions see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqiposs.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html
i believe that the lhaarsma's is the most complete.
however none of them sound anything like number 7 in the poll above.
i wonder if this poll is trying to prove something rather than to gauge sentiment?
what's the word i'm looking for? prejudicial language
from: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php
[Edited on 3-4-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
no1special18
Puritan Board Freshman
I am convinced that someone would have to do gymnastics with the text to get it to say anything other then seven literal 24 hour days.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Although my thought does lean toward the literal interpretation, at this point I essentially give at least some liberty to each position that affirms the historicity of the garden account and creation ex nihilo...much like the issue of eschatology for me at least right now, where I don't conclusively reject any common position other than hyper-Preterism and the Dispensational view.
Rich Barcellos
Puritan Board Freshman
Reymond's New Syst. has some good stuff on this.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Does he take the literal interpretation?
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
A long time.
Yet less than a ten billioneth millioneth of a second with regards to eternity.
( worth the edit )...
Could not vote, no real option for me. I am not a Darwi.
lol!
Forgot my mantra...'Does it matter' ?
[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]
Yet less than a ten billioneth millioneth of a second with regards to eternity.
( worth the edit )...
Could not vote, no real option for me. I am not a Darwi.
lol!
Forgot my mantra...'Does it matter' ?
[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]
bradofshaw
Puritan Board Freshman
As a matter of biblical understanding, I believe the Bible teaches seven days, so that's what I'm sticking to.
The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time.
However, I see no need to capitulate with the "apparent" age of creation that evolution promotes. 1. Evolutionary theory itself necessitates the "scientific" age of the earth and universe more than the actual evidence. 2. Especially when it comes to light from stars, etc., I think it is easily understandable that God simply created things with apparent age. Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, as were the animals I would assume. Why couldn't the stars be old enough to have even died out at that time?
The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time.
However, I see no need to capitulate with the "apparent" age of creation that evolution promotes. 1. Evolutionary theory itself necessitates the "scientific" age of the earth and universe more than the actual evidence. 2. Especially when it comes to light from stars, etc., I think it is easily understandable that God simply created things with apparent age. Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, as were the animals I would assume. Why couldn't the stars be old enough to have even died out at that time?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The light from stars thing always stuck me, until someone pointed out that whenevre God creates, he creates mature and fully functional, with an appearance of history it never had (man, Jesus' fish and bread, etc).
bradofshaw
Puritan Board Freshman
I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
On fossil strata and so forth - its silliness to assume, which evolutionists do, that the strata represents millions of years as the records continually go deeper. What they need to do is seriously bring out the findings of Mt St. Helens after it blew. Go figure, in 8 minutes (yes, that's right - 8 whole minutes) it created petrified forests layered at differentiation levels of petrification (as if to think it happened over millions of years like in Yellowstone), layered strata (just like you see in the fossil records), and a miniature Grand Canyon. But they'll never tell because information like that will overthrow evolution completely.
A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days. If Mt. St. Helens can do it in 8 minutes on a small scale, 40 days would be enough time on a large scale.
A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days. If Mt. St. Helens can do it in 8 minutes on a small scale, 40 days would be enough time on a large scale.
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
do you have a reference to them being petrified as a result of being buried in ash?
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Yes. I'll try and locate it. It was a documentary series i watched.
Presbyrino
Puritan Board Freshman
My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.
Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.
[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]
Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.
[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I believe this was the video.
http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/30-9-063
Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
Dr. Steven Austin
http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/30-9-063
Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
Dr. Steven Austin
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)
This theory, though the minority, was developed precisely because the fossil record was a joke. The theory, by the way, claims that we don't have transitional forms because evolution has a long period of stasis punctuated by short bursts of evolutionary change. So, we see that the theory has been formulated in such a way that the non-evidence of intermediate fossils is actually evidence for evolution! It's like: my evidence is that there wouldn't have been any evidence!
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
One major treatment of that, written on the popular level, is Stephen Jay Gould's Full House. While I naturally don't agree with the core of his evolutionary thesis, the book itself as a whole is an extremely fascinating (and entertaining, I might add) read nonetheless, including all the relating factors and tangents it explores in a variety of categories. I think you might enjoy it.
bradofshaw
Puritan Board Freshman
Yeah, I'm aware of the ways evolutionists try to explain the holes in the fossil records. I was just wondering whether or not the existence of the fossil record was something that lead people to take alternate views on creation. In other words, the fossils that are there couldn't have developed in the timeframe of young earth 6 day creationism. Dr. McMahon seems to confirm that the flood and similar catastrophic events can account for the presence of fossiles, even in a relatively young earth.
I'm also aware that dating methods are highly biased, and that carbon dating is incredibly scetchy. Does dating based on fossile records go something like this:
1. we have x layers of fossils.
2. it takes about x number of years for a fossil to form
3. therefore, when you add fossil layers a, b, and c together, you figure the earth must be x years old.
I seem to remember people who favor the cataclysmic view of Genesis 1 seem to cite the fossil record.
Rich Barcellos
Puritan Board Freshman
Six 24hr. days.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Here's what I think about this:
I think we should all remember that if ( hypothetically ) a denomination, say, I ( variable ) P ( Presbyterian ) C ( Church ) of X ( variable ) , the IPCX, votes that the Gap Theory is a permissible view under the Confessions, then it is de facto the case that the literal seven-day view is not the official doctrinal stance of that denomination. If the seven-day view is a doctrinal stance, then the other views cannot be deemed as adiaphora, indifferent. Likewise, if any of the views, such as the Gap Theory, is viewed as adiaphora, then if follows that the seven-day view is also at best adiaphora. A differing or competing view cannot be indifferent to the official doctrinal view.
Where there is difference of views allowed, there lacks a doctrinal stance of a specific view.
The question is, then, whether the IPCX is being faithful to the Confessions, or whether the Confessions are not as clearly six-day as we like to believe? We all have our views, but none of us individually or as a group is greater than the church.
Therefore, going one step further, it is not right for an office-bearer to go beyond the authority of his church to declare as authoritative what the deonomination has not declared authoritative.
In another thread I came down kind of strong on a respected church leader for standing for one view over against another, by use of his office. But I also said what it was that I would teach if I had the office to teach. As much as I hold to the six-day view, it may be the fact that it is not the official view of the church, or is not deemed doctrinal. Just teaching the six-day view, because I think its Biblical and right, but is not the denomination's decision on it, would then not be in union with the church which has authorized me to teach. If an office was my responsibility, then union and mutual support would be a part of that office. A board of elders does not work if they are against each other, instead of able to count on each others' support.
I voted seven day. I think it stands alone among all the views as the one that the Bible mentions. But I wouldn't divide the church over it. I would take exception to an elder or minister thinking that they then have the right to teach whatever view they themselves are convinced of or want. But that has nothing to do with the views themselves; its a matter of office and authority.
[Edited on 3-7-2006 by JohnV]
I think we should all remember that if ( hypothetically ) a denomination, say, I ( variable ) P ( Presbyterian ) C ( Church ) of X ( variable ) , the IPCX, votes that the Gap Theory is a permissible view under the Confessions, then it is de facto the case that the literal seven-day view is not the official doctrinal stance of that denomination. If the seven-day view is a doctrinal stance, then the other views cannot be deemed as adiaphora, indifferent. Likewise, if any of the views, such as the Gap Theory, is viewed as adiaphora, then if follows that the seven-day view is also at best adiaphora. A differing or competing view cannot be indifferent to the official doctrinal view.
Where there is difference of views allowed, there lacks a doctrinal stance of a specific view.
The question is, then, whether the IPCX is being faithful to the Confessions, or whether the Confessions are not as clearly six-day as we like to believe? We all have our views, but none of us individually or as a group is greater than the church.
Therefore, going one step further, it is not right for an office-bearer to go beyond the authority of his church to declare as authoritative what the deonomination has not declared authoritative.
In another thread I came down kind of strong on a respected church leader for standing for one view over against another, by use of his office. But I also said what it was that I would teach if I had the office to teach. As much as I hold to the six-day view, it may be the fact that it is not the official view of the church, or is not deemed doctrinal. Just teaching the six-day view, because I think its Biblical and right, but is not the denomination's decision on it, would then not be in union with the church which has authorized me to teach. If an office was my responsibility, then union and mutual support would be a part of that office. A board of elders does not work if they are against each other, instead of able to count on each others' support.
I voted seven day. I think it stands alone among all the views as the one that the Bible mentions. But I wouldn't divide the church over it. I would take exception to an elder or minister thinking that they then have the right to teach whatever view they themselves are convinced of or want. But that has nothing to do with the views themselves; its a matter of office and authority.
[Edited on 3-7-2006 by JohnV]
Originally posted by Presbyrino
My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.
Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.
[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]
I must confess. My ape-like finger clicked when it shouldn't have. But I did think that answer was funny.
I'm a 6 dayer, but I'm not committed to the 24 hour part. After all, in Joshua's day there was a long day too. I'm comfortable with it being six literal days of creation and leaving the stopwatch out of it.
Vic
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
There is, of course, a serious problem with believing in a literal six-day creation....................
......................Why did it take so long?
......................Why did it take so long?
Ah, yes, except that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 covers a 7 day period. Are you saying that Gen 2:3 really refers to the 6th 24 hour day?!
- Status
