-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism
- Thread starter Anastasia
- Start date
I am certainly not one of them. And that is a red herring. For no matter how educated a man is, without the Spirit of God he is deaf to the Word of God.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Then explain Romans 1:20. God can be understood and assertained by non believers. Without the spirit they just don't want to come to him. So it is in understanding scriptures. The long in short of your argument is simply this. Unless we interpret scriptures the way you do then you don't consider us a spirit filled man. This belief by you is wrong. Because it comes down to you rather than God.
No it isn't. Romans 1:20 is no speaking of the exposition and exegesis of God''s Word. You know better than that. It is simply speaking of general revelation in creation that testifies to a Creator.
You referenced "scholars" from places like Yale. You referenced "academics," and also Jewish scholars. Who are these people--secular scholars and Jewish academics. The Jews are not saved. Neither are the secular academics.
Therefore:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
--They receive not the things of the Spirit of God.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
--Their very testimony concerning the Word of God condemns them.
The Bible speaks of the blind leading the blind and both shall fall into the ditch. That describes the unsaved person trying to be an authority on the Word of God. He can't.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No not just a creator but to specific attributes of the creator. We can actually know his attributes. Anyone can parse a text. Only a believer will have faith in it. But that doesn't mean a person can't understand what is being said. They just reject it. That is the actual difference.
No. Jewish scholars aren't saved but they have certain insight into their own texts and language in which those text were written in. I like Metzger a lot I will not judge if he is saved or not. I do not know the many men who studied at Yale to come up with the commentary but I will not judge their salvation. However, I do know this Jonathan Edwards was a Yale Student and bible scholar and I don't see anyone questioning his salvation based on his associate with the school. I also know this. That break through in language and comparitive analysis by scholars are just as valuable whether they are saved or not. It was the Church men who insisted by the bible that the earth was at the center of the universe since we've learned it isn't true but Galileo was arrested non the less.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Can't make much sense out of your response above. I think you either left out words or had some spelling errors (I do the same thing). However, Jesus does not refer to plural "creations" as though there were more than one. His reference is to Genesis 1:26-27. You have yet to provide a response that provides any kind of rational response to Christ's words. His words deny evolutionary development of mankind thousand, millions or billions of years AFTER creation because his words DEMAND that Genesis 1:26-27 occurred "AT the beginning of creation" not billions of years AFTER creation. Case closed.
Same term, Same Author (Holy Spirit). When a certain term is disputed as in Genesis, credible scholarship seeks to find out other Biblical writers used the same term. This is exactly what Morris did. This is just one more evidence, among many, that the literal interpretation of Genesis one fits the facts.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Spelling is my often problem. Basically I said the Audience is expected to know the story Jesus was talking about.
Because there is only one creation. The Genesis records this account in two fashions that do not agree.
And his audience is considered to be familiar with it.
Jesus spoke to people on their level. He never speaks beyond. Do you think Jesus at this point in time could have had a discourse on DNA and how the enzymes worked?
I never suggested evolutionary development. I suggest and still hold to an old earth view.
Again it does not. The sky is not a metal dome. Stars are not engraved on it. Nor does it have floodgates to the water above the dome. Man was created after plants appeared. Not when the earth was a big mud bowl.
Gup20
Active Member
His point was about the arrogance of Dr. Walter, not regarding the content of his post. I agree, Dr. Walter's post was arrogant, which is a shame because it detracts from the viewpoint I share.
I vehemently disagree with you, mandym, in your implication that that science is anti-God or that science and the Bible do not agree with one another. Science is the realm of repeatable, observable experimentation. By evolutionary, theistic evolutionary, or even young creationist worldviews, the creation of all things happened prior to anyone being there to observe it. Additionally, it cannot be repeated. So anyone who holds to a worldview that includes a belief on origins does so by faith, not by science.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I fail to see any rational response to the fact that Christ placed the creation of man within a TIME frame that denies thousands, millions, billions of years between "THE BEGINNING" of creation and the recorded act of God in Genesis 1:26-27.
You are assuming your interpretation of "firmament" in Genesis One when Dr. Morris is challenging that very assumption by pointing out that this term can also mean a stetched out space rather than a solid object.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
And Dr. Morris is wrong. Because the word used to place stars in this firmament is engraved which could only be on a hard surface. Looking to the linguistics Hebrew Scholars agree that the term is to imply a hard surface.
Gup20
Active Member
The days of Genesis 1 are most certainly meant to convey literal ~ 24 hour days. Each day says "and the evening and the morning was the [number] day". If you look the Old Testament Hebrew - everywhere outside of Genesis 1 where the word "day" is used in conjunction with the word "evening" it always means a literal day. Everywhere the word day is used in conjunction with the word morning, it always means a literal day. Every time the word day is used in conjunction with a number, it always means a literal day. In Genesis 1, evening, morning, number, day is always used, therefore there can be no doubt whether it was intended to mean a literal day.
The first letter of each verse in Genesis 1 from verse 2 onward starts with the Hebrew letter YOM. This indicates the word "and" meaning the following text relates back in an inclusive manner to the previous text. For example, if I said "I got a shirt, and pants, and shoes from the store"I know that shirt, pants, and shoes all relate back to the verb "i got" because the word "and" mandates inclusion. The NASB translation has omitted all of the "ands" thinking them to be superfluous. They think "I got a shirt, pants, shoes from the store" basically means the same thing. However the "ands" are important because the list is complex and spread out across many sentences.
So when Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and then verse 3 says "and God said let there be light", it can be demonstrated by the "and" at the beginning that "God created light" relates back to, and is included in the phrase "in the beginning, God created". So I could quote Genesis 1:3 as "In the beginning, God created and said let there be light, and there was light."
This exegesis is confirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6:
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Jesus properly quotes Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 as if they are one, contiguous statement because the YOM (and) makes them one contiguous statement.
This statement betrays a deeper, underlying implication. That implication is that science and scripture stand opposed to one another. They do not. Science - the science that brings us computers, and cars, and space shuttles - is the realm of observation and repeatability. But there were no witnesses to creation (no one on earth observed it), and it cannot be repeated. Therefore, it falls outside the realm of science. Some may object and say "but we can use forensic science to determine the truth." Can we? Romans 5:12 says that by one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and that death entered the world because of his sin. We know that Adam sinned and death entered the world through Adam's sin, so there was no death before the fall of Adam. How can we forensically determine what was before the fall using observation from the present which is post-fall? How do we forensically extrapolate back using fallen, death filled observation and make accurate predictions about a time prior to death and the fall? It cannot be done.
This is why God gives us the one and only eye-witness account. He was the only one who saw it. Because it is different now than it was then, and looking at what we have now can never forensically lead us to the right conclusion because there was a significant change.
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
If death is an enemy of God, then why would God call a world that contained it "very good" as He said frequently in Genesis 1?
Be careful not to read in your own eisegetical ideas into the text here.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Note which invisible attributes are clearly seen; 1) His eternal power, and 2) His divine nature. The text limits what can be seen by what is made to these two specific attributes. Note that both attributes are eternal and divine in nature (immaterial) not temporal (material) in nature. It does not say "you can understand the temporal world in which you live by observing it", but rather it says you can understand the power and nature of God by what He has made. In other words, it does not tell you that you can know about the material world by observing what is made, it tells us that we can know something about an immaterial God by seeing what He made.
Check out this article on problem with the Gap (or ruin, reconstruction) theories:
Problems with the Gap Theory
Believing in the gap theory presents a number of problems and inconsistencies, especially for a Christian.
- It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.
- It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.
- The gap theory is logically inconsistent because it explains away what it is supposed to accommodate—supposed evidence for an old earth.
- The gap theory does away with the evidence for the historical event of the global Flood.
- The gap theorist ignores the evidence for a young earth.
- The gap theory fails to accommodate standard uniformitarian geology with its long ages.
- Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.
By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).
Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other scriptures, such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Genesis 3:22–23. These passages tell us that Adam’s sin led to physical death, as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the death of the Last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man’s sin, because Adam, the first man, died physically because of sin.
In cursing man with physical death, God also provided a way to redeem man through the person of His Son Jesus Christ, who suffered the curse of death on the Cross for us. He tasted “death for everyone” according to Hebrews 2:9. He took the penalty that should rightly have been ours at the hands of the Righteous Judge, and bore it in His own body on the Cross. Jesus Christ tasted death for all mankind, and He defeated death when He rose from the grave three days later. Men can be free from eternal death in hell if they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They then are received back to God to spend eternity with Him. That is the message of Christianity.
To believe there was death before Adam’s sin destroys the basis of the Christian message. The Bible states that man’s rebellious actions led to death and the corruption of the universe, but the gap theory undermines the reason that man needs a Savior.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I don't have a problem with the message of the bible. The problem with all your review of Genesis begins with a faulty assumption. The assumption that the writer of Genesis was writing for the purpose of accurately explaining creation in a natural method. This is not the case. The writer of Genesis isn't Luke speaking with eye witness to the fact but carrying forward an oral tradition among the semetic people who carried their repeated story from Canaan and probably before that from Ur where Abraham is from. Note the Akkadian and Sumerian accounts are similar in structure and even same names given.
Think of it like this I want to tell you about how terrified I was some night ago. I begin "it was a dark and stormy night" Linguisticly internally the passage means that in the evening hours (not specified) it was dark and immagine rain or storm clouds overhead. However, The focus of my story isn't how dark or whether it was in a 6 - 12 hour period in the rain but that this particular night was frightening to begin with. Then imagine someone looks at the weather reports for that night and come up with it was a full moon and no storm. Am I to be disbelieved? No because the intent was that I was scared and it seemed to me that it was dark and stormy.
You find the refrain used over and over again and even God finding that what he made was good is also refrain. IN the Creation story God sets out to point out to people who believe the sky was an actual dome was that 1) he is the creator. 2) greater than all gods 3)everything is subject to him 4) man is the pinnacle of creation 5) establishes a sence of Jusitice 6) sets up a theology of the Sabbath 7) sets up a theology and the institution of marriage 8) explains creation in 3 general catagories call days and 3 specific catagories called night. Toping his creation of man. Genesis chapter 2 begins his theology of man and relation to God with the institution of Marriage.. This is why the two accounts don't really jive. Because God is speaking about two different things. The bible is not a scientific manual. Is a theological book or a library of many books with many stylistic writigs all telling one story...Salvation history.
Gup20
Active Member
The Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 jive perfectly. Chapter 1 is the overall creation account (it is a historical narrative), and chapter 2 focuses on Day 6 (and onward).
I too like to use the NASB, but here the translators have been bitten by their own translation rules. They set about to intentionally remove a lot of "and" statements (YOM) to make it more readable, assuming that it wouldn't change the meaning, but it has added a lot of confusion.
Here is the context:
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Verse 5 relates back to the previous verse because of the YOM character that starts it (hence the word AND). So the time referenced is "the day that the Lord made the heavens and earth". Notice it doesn't have evening, morning, or number in conjunction with the word "day" so that word day means "time" rather than a literal 24 hour day (in the [time] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens).
If you incorrectly interpret this passage to mean that man came before plants, then you must also (to be consistent) interpret it to mean that plants came before the earth and the heavens as well. But that makes no sense with the rest of the verse - "for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth". Therefore, it is an incorrect exegesis to say that it means plants came before man.
Instead, what it really says is - "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew"
You'll notice all I changed was I removed the verse numbers. When you read it plainly with the "and" intact, you can see that verse 5 is part of the statements in verse 4. It is part of a general list of things God created when he created heavens and earth.
Thinkingstuff said:
Permit me to ask a rhetorical question - do you believe that young earth and old earth believers have a different set of facts?
It is a mistake to think that facts on their own tell a story. Facts must be interpreted to have meaning. The reason old and young earth adherents come to very different conclusions is not because of the facts, but rather because of the underlying assumptions in their worldview that colors the way they see those facts. This is the reason that debates over the facts never lead anywhere. A worldview is like a pair of sunglasses that are colored. One person wears green glasses that color everything green, and one person wears yellow glasses that color everything yellow. When they look at the facts, they see those fact through the lens of their assumptive, faith based framework.
In reality, it is not a debate about the facts, but about the assumptions that color our interpretation of the facts.
The Bible is not a textbook, and with good reason. Textbooks need to be revised every year as new discoveries are made that disprove everything we thought was true. The Bible is true eternal. Every subject that it touches upon is accurate and true. So when the Bible touches on history, it is accurate and true. When the Bible touches on scientific principles, it is right. It can be relied upon as ultimate truth.
How could there be three days and three nights before there was a sun ? My question reflects a misunderstanding of the literary form of the creation story. The order in which material appear in the story reflects the writers literary organizational technique and not any attempt to describe the historic or scientific order.
How could God create anything? How could God raise people from the dead or heal the blind? How could God be everywhere at once? How could God know everything that will ever happen? He's God. He works miracles and has all power.
The average Yale student or graduate today is not saved.
Jewish scholars are not saved.
You gave an example from the far past--Jonathan Edwards, who was a preacher. That is apples and oranges, isn't it. He is not from today's generation, nor a secular humanist commenting on the Word of God, as most of the department of Biblical Studies at Yale would be.
So tell me, would you trust the Word of God into the hands of an Islamic Scholar? Why not? All three groups are unsaved, and all three have the same "father." You can only serve one "master."
Gup20
Active Member
For day and night, you need two things - you need a fixed source of light, and you need the earth to be rotating.
You will notice on Day 1, God creates light, then separates the light from the darkness - or in other words gathers the light into one place (for example when God separated the dry land from the water on earth). Then we see the phrase "and the evening, and the morning were the first day," indicating that the earth was spinning. On day 3 the sun becomes the dominant fixed light source to indicate the passing of each day based on the earth's rotation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Make that Day 4.
Which brings up a major problem with the so-called 'literal' approach.
Such interpretation demands a literal day for days 1 to 3 but, in this 'literal' so-called interpretaton there is no literal sun until Day 4 and before Day 4 there are NO "lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night... for signs and for seasons, and for days and years"
I don't know what is so difficult with a literal reading here:
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:5)
The evening and the morning were the first day. The day is defined as a 24 hour day, as it is throughout the whole account. Our God is a God of order and not of chaos. While He didn't make the sun until the fourth day, that doesn't mean He was incapable of providing light; for He Himself is the very essence of light.
By the end of Day One, the earth was already rotating on its axis giving a 24 hour day as the light shone upon it.
Gup20
Active Member
Err... yeah, Day 4.
You don't need a sun for evening, morning or for the time of 1 day to pass... you only need the earth to spin and a fixed light source.