Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism

[quantumfaith]

Augustine was particularly aware of the risks of turning biblical texts into precise scientific treatises and wrote, with specific reference to Genesis.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

Saint Augustine

Quoted from "The Language of God" by Francis Collins

 

[12strings]

This link is a video by Dr. Jason Lisle, Phd (astrophysics) and he gives an irrefutable argument for creation

I don't think anyone here is arguing against creation...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against creation...

Nope. Everyone hear holds to creation the question is whether the genesis account should be taken as a scientific comment or an allegorical one.

 

[quantumfaith]

This assumes that "scientific observation" is infallible. Only the Word of God is.

Mandym,

Although I am completely in agreement with you here, but allow me to play the other side of the coin, how do you KNOW it is infallible? Our faith is in some ways as tenuous as we sometimes lay at the feet of science, it is our faith because we believe. There are multitudes of questions that "skeptics" can pepper us with, ultimately, with regard to our faith, we have "acknowledged and accepted" it as ultimate truth.

To me, this is the most interesting endeavor of apologetics. Not the squabbling over who has the most "correct theology" or whose God is more sovereign, rather intelligently answering questions which unlike much of science which seeks to rest on the observable and repeatable experiments producing data.

We as believers can point to so very much data that suggests our faith is valid and correct, but in the end, it is that FAITH.

 

[Gup20]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against creation...

Perhaps I should have said it will clear up some of the questions Anastasia had about personal experiences and science and whether there is conflict between science and the Bible. It seemed simpler to say "creation".

 

[quantumfaith]

>I believe that all five points of Calvinism flatly contradict the words of Christ.

Which of the writings of Calvin have YOU read?

Bill, could you explain?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Good post. I have a Reformation Study Bible that is edited by RC Sproul. While many here may disagree with him on soteriology, he would hardly be classified as a liberal Christian, much less a non-Christian. In his notes, he brings up the various interpretations of creation including a literal 6/24, the gap theory and others. You may want to check it out. It is a very reasoned, scholarly and scriptural view.

Personally, I don't know how there could be six strict 24 hour days since the sun and the moon were not created until the 4th day.

 

[Walguy]

Personally, I don't know how there could be six strict 24 hour days since the sun and the moon were not created until the 4th day.

God created light on the first day, and separated it from the darkness to create day and night. The phrase 'and the evening and the morning was the [x] day' is used exactly the same for all of the 6 creation days. This strongly indicates that the same specific time period is being referred to for each day, and that a day has always meant the same thing from the beginning, a 24 hour period divided into light and darkness. It is light and darkness that define a 24 hour day, regardless of the source of the light. I assume you would not suggest that God is incapable of maintaining a 24 hour day without the sun.

 

[Anastasia]

God created light on the first day, and separated it from the darkness to create day and night. The phrase 'and the evening and the morning was the [x] day' is used exactly the same for all of the 6 creation days. This strongly indicates that the same specific time period is being referred to for each day, and that a day has always meant the same thing from the beginning, a 24 hour period divided into light and darkness. It is light and darkness that define a 24 hour day, regardless of the source of the light. I assume you would not suggest that God is incapable of maintaining a 24 hour day without the sun.

Light exists all the time. Where is shines with relation to the earth determines something of night vs. day.

Genesis 1:14 Then 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[DHK]

Light exists all the time. Where is shines with relation to the earth determines something of night vs. day.

Genesis 1:14 Then 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

As far as man is concerned light did not exist all the time. It was created. That is what Genesis one is all about--the Creation story. We all know that God is light--that is given. But in relation to the creation of the world and the universe God created "light" to shine upon the earth. What was the source of the light. We believe it first was God, and then later the sun moon and stars. We do not deny the Word of God when he specifically says that he created light.

 

[Walguy]

Light exists all the time. Where is shines with relation to the earth determines something of night vs. day.

Genesis 1:14 Then 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

We're talking about the 24 hour day here, from the perspective of any given point on the earth. Over the course of a 24 hour day, there is obviously a period of light and a period of darkness. This situation was specifically established by God on DAY ONE of the creation week. I point out again that the phrase 'and the evening and the morning was the [x] day' is used exactly the same in regards to each of the 6 creation days. Are you suggesting that in the last three instances this phrase means a 24 hour day passed, but in the first 3 it means an undetermined period of time passed? Why would God use such deceptiveness in telling us about His creative works and their timing? Clearly He didn't, because he set the pattern for what a day is when He first created light on day one, not when he created the sun and other heavenly bodies on day 4 to become the permanent sources of light. When 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 daysand years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,” He wasn't creating those functions, since light and darkness and the 24 hour day/night cycle had already been established on day one. He was merely reassigning those already existing roles to new sources.
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Please explain to me, in detail, how everything God said and did on day one isn't reduced to complete nonsense by an insistence that there couldn't be a real 24 hour day until 3 evenings and mornings had already passed, especially since the same precise phrasing is used to describe the passing of a day both before and after the creation of the sun. Or you might want to consider just accepting God's simple statements at face value.

 

[Gup20]

God created light on day one. The day (evening, morning) are dependent on the earth's rotation on its own axis and a fixed source of light. A year is dependent on the earth's rotation around the sun. But for a day, all you need is the earth to spin on it's own axis at a constant rate. For evening and morning all you need is a fixed light source as the earth spins on its axis.

So if God created light on day 1, then separated the light from the dark (meaning gathered the light into one place) there could certainly be the ability to tell the time of a day with evening and morning.

 

[Walguy]

God created light on day one. The day (evening, morning) are dependent on the earth's rotation on its own axis and a fixed source of light. A year is dependent on the earth's rotation around the sun. But for a day, all you need is the earth to spin on it's own axis at a constant rate. For evening and morning all you need is a fixed light source as the earth spins on its axis.

So if God created light on day 1, then separated the light from the dark (meaning gathered the light into one place) there could certainly be the ability to tell the time of a day with evening and morning.

Thank you! That's the clear, plain, obvious meaning of the text. The six creation days were all the same in terms of length and light/dark periods. Only the light source changed on day 4, nothing else. This whole 'there can't be a real day without the sun' thing is just Satan's latest attempt to challenge and discredit what God has told humanity, a long series that goes all the way back to when he essentially said to Eve, "Did God REALLY say not to eat that fruit because you would die? He wasn't telling you the truth. You won't die!" Now he is whispering into the ears of sincere people, "Did God REALLY say that the universe and earth and everything in them were created on six normal days? It's not true. There can't be real days without the sun, right?" When we start believing that God's clear, simple statements don't mean what everything in the text strongly indicates they do, we are choosing to disbelieve God just as Eve did. NOTHING GOOD CAN EVER COME FROM THAT KIND OF CHOICE.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You have one simple choice. You can believe and follow how UNINSPIRED men interpret Genesis 1-2 or you can believe and follow how INSPIRED men interpret Genesis 1-2 but you cannot embrace both because they are contradictory to each other.

Uninspired men interpet Genesis 1 to include a gap of millions of years between the beginning of the universe and the appearance of man on earth. Many uninspired men suggest that Genesis 1 is primarily poetic in nature and must be understood figuratively rather than literally. However, is this how inspired men regarded Genesis 1?


1. In regard to the first issue:

Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



Literal statement or figuragive words:

And God said, let there be....and it was so - v. 1

And God said, let there be....and it was so- v. 6

And God said, let the....and it was so- v. 9

And God said, let the.....and it was so - v. 11

And God said, let the.....and it was so- v. 14

And God said, let the......- v. 20

And God said, let the.....and it was so- v. 24

And God said, let the.....- v. 26

And God said, let the.... - v. 29


This statement permeates the entire account. How did other Biblical writers view the above characterization that permeates every single day of Genesis One? As a literal or symbolic view

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.



Does the following Hebrew parallelism indicate symbolism or emphasis of literal and historical record?

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.



Peter spoke of Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists after this manner:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God interpreted the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest in a LITERAL HISTORICAL manner by making it the EXAMPLE for humans to apply on a week by week basis:

Ex. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 FOR in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


2. In regard to the Second issue (gap) between the origin of creation and the origin of man:

Jesus denied any hermeneutic that allowed for the days in Genesis One to be interpreted as symbolic or figurative of millions and billions of years between the origin of the universe and the origin of the human specie.


Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Every single day of the six days there was a "beginning" of something new on each day, therefore the whole six days of creation could justly be called "the beginning of creation." However, such words cannot possiby be applied to the origin of man if it took place thousands, millions or billions of years after the origin of the earth.

Those who interpret the Genesis record so that billions of years take place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:26-27 are making Christ a liar. Those who teach evolution or theistic evolution are making Christ a liar. Man did not originate billions of years AFTER the origin of the universe but "AT THE BEGINNING" and thus "FROM THE BEGINNING of the creation of God.

Inspired men literally interpreted "And God said" as the literal origin of creation and Jesus denied there were millions of years gap between "the beginning of creation" and the appearance of man on earth as he explicitly refers to Genesis 1:26-27. and places it "AT the beginning" of the creation rather than millions of years aftewards.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well one "yom" in the future, look me up Dr. Walter. I am hoping (with anticipation) of being in the presence of my creator in that day, you and I (and others) can go and seek the wisdom and understanding with which He accomplished creation from the source and if I have been completely wrong, you will have my most sincere apology, on the other hand I will expect the very same courtesy from you. Until then the well trodden cliche, "we will just agree to disagree" will be in effect.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well one "yom" in the future, look me up Dr. Walter. I am hoping (with anticipation) of being in the presence of my creator in that day, you and I (and others) can go and seek the wisdom and understanding with which He accomplished creation from the source and if I have been completely wrong, you will have my most sincere apology, on the other hand I will expect the very same courtesy from you. Until then the well trodden cliche, "we will just agree to disagree" will be in effect.

Are you saying all this merely to dismiss the evidence I have placed before you so that you can renew again and afresh your same aguments in this post OR are you dropping the discussion with this conclusion?

If the latter, then, you have a deal. However, if the former, I will be placing this evidence back in your face down the line.

 

[quantumfaith]

Are you saying all this merely to dismiss the evidence I have placed before you so that you can renew again and afresh your same aguments in this post OR are you dropping the discussion with this conclusion?

If the latter, then, you have a deal. However, if the former, I will be placing this evidence back in your face down the line.

You can place whatever you wish in my "face", such a nice colloquialism btw. I don't just "drop"out, I will comment when and if I take the notion Dr. Walter. Also, I don't "dismiss" your posts, I happen to not agree in many instances.

 

[HankD]

With God all things are possible.

In this case I agree with the young earth view because of the wording of Genesis 1-3.

I have used another biblical account as a microcosm of creation.

The account of the miracle at Cana.

Jesus made wine from water that was "the best".

He did it instantly. But what of that wine?

What if you asked someone to give the age of that wine?
How about a DNA analysis?

Wine which takes at least two years to make (a growing season, a harvesting season, a processing, fermenting and aging season) and even longer being "the best".

Yet He did it in an instant.

Six sidereal days of creation? Not a big deal for our Triune God.

Not to mention the fish and bread of the feeding of the 5000.

HankD

 

[Gup20]

Are you saying all this merely to dismiss the evidence I have placed before you so that you can renew again and afresh your same aguments in this post OR are you dropping the discussion with this conclusion?

If the latter, then, you have a deal. However, if the former, I will be placing this evidence back in your face down the line.

Dr. Walter you need to learn grace and humility. No one will accept your posts, regardless of the content, because of the arrogant and antagonistic way in which you present it.

 

[HankD]

Dr. Walter you need to learn grace and humility. No one will accept your posts, regardless of the content, because of the arrogant and antagonistic way in which you present it.

He means well Gup.

HankD