six day literal creation?

The two accounts of creation (Gen 1 and Gen 2) are two approaches to the same story. The main difference is the word/name used for God. In Gen. 1, the name for God is "elohim" and more generic term for G(g)od. (This is actually a plural.) God is felt as more transcencdent or distant from His creation.

The name used for God in Chap. 2 of Genesis is YHWH, God's formal name. This helps to illustrate God's trancendence or closeness with His creation.

Same story - different emphasis.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I have discovered this in my study.

 

I agree that it does not matter at all if God created the earth in six literal days or not. However, it is important to make it known to the unbelievers that not all Christians got their education from a dog-training school, and that the Christian faith is not based upon willful ignorance.

</font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. I was not suggesting that at all.

I have two masters degrees from New Orleans baptist Theological Seminary and have done further study at Tulane University in music and religion.

 

Craig, why do you make such disparaging remarks all the time? Can you not just stick to the issues?

 

Tenor wrote,

That is fantastic! Thank you for sharing this with us. I have read some of your other posts on this board and I look forward to reading many more of them. Keep up the good work.

 

It matters a great deal if God created the world in six literal days or not. To pass it off as inconsequential is to say the foundation of a building is not important. Either God knows how to communicate with men or not. Either God caused the direct truth to be written or He did not.

If not, then throw away the Bible and just live the best you can.

If so, however, then pay attention to what He says, for it is important.

The day/age theory does not work in part because of the order of events in creation vs. the supposed order of events in the long-ages theories as well as the impossibility of the order of events in Genesis if superimposed upon long ages.

The gap theory does not work because it denies the Hebrew word usage in Genesis 1:2 as well as the clear wording of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17.

Genesis should be accepted or rejected on its own terms. It presents itself as a series of eyewitness reports. Is it or isn't it?

 

Marcia wrote,

I don't have a whole lot of respect for foolish teachings that make Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons suffering from that the late stages of dementia, and I sometimes express that fact when I post on the issues of KJOism and young-earth creationism. I do, however, stick VERY close to the issues.

For more than 25 years, it has been my observation that the Christian fundamentalist extremist teaching of young-earth creationism is the number one threat to Christianity today. I personally live in a community in which earned doctorates from prestigious universities are common place and where multiple earned doctorates from prestigious universities are rapidly becoming common place. Very many people in my community view the Christian faith as being the religion of uneducated fools.

The community where is live is different from many communities in the Western World, but it is far from unique and we are finding more and more of them everyday as the Western World becomes better and better educated.


I myself grew up having met only the most pitifully ignorant Christians who believed in KJOism and young-earth creationism and I assumed that all Christians were pitifully ignorant and that the Bible was nothing but a book about their nonsense. But by the grace of God, Jesus was made known to me through the personal testimony of some teenagers whose love for Jesus convicted me of my sin and my need for a savior. And by the grace of God, a man was brought into my life who not only loved Jesus, but who loved the Bible and enjoyed studying it very carefully and prayerfully and who also very much enjoyed learning from others who loved to study the Bible. His love was contagious, and I began to read and study carefully and prayerfully, relying always upon the Holy Spirit to teach me His truths and to protect me from error as I prayed daily for God to do precisely that.

I soon found myself entrenched once again in the world of academia, but my daily and most sincere prayer for God to teach me His truths and to protect me from error remained a very important part of my daily life. And probably because of this, the truth became VERY important to me, and something to be highly prized, while error became utterly repugnant to me—especially when that error was the consequence of laziness, carelessness, and arrogance.

 

Helen wrote,

• Hogwash!
• Hogwash!
• Hogwash!

It makes absolutely no difference of any sort whatsoever if God created the world in six literal days or not. The foundation of my house is absolutely essential to the integrity of the structure of my house; but whether or not God created the world in six literal days is of no consequence to the integrity of either the structure of the Bible or its message. God knows how to communicate with men who are willing to listen. Indeed, he can even communicate with a donkey that is willing to listen, but if a man or a woman is not willing to listen, . . . .

Those who are not able to understand their Bible and who are making no progress in learning to understand it should prayerfully consider giving it to someone else.

 

Helen wrote,

• Hogwash!
• Hogwash!
• Hogwash!


• The day/age theory works just fine for some people.

• The gap theory does NOT deny the Hebrew word usage anywhere in the Bible (Helen, you should know better than to post such tripe!)

• Genesis is a foundational book in our Holy Scriptures and it should NOT be rejected just because it requires a little bit of an education to appreciate and understand it.

My dear readers,

The book of Genesis is my very favorite book in the Old Testament and it is very precious to me. When I read posts about Genesis written by Helen and others who subscribe to her notions about it, I am greatly offended. This most precious book is well worth the trouble to study it, but please don’t get hung up on details that don’t matter! Genesis is full of spiritual truths and lessons given to us by God to help us know Him better and to help us live lives more pleasing to Him. The old rascally devil knows this all too well, and he will use anyone that he can to cause you to take a detour into an obsession about days and genealogies that have no bearing upon the Christian faith. Read the Book of Genesis for yourself, earnestly praying to God for Him to teach you His truths in Genesis and to protect you from error. And read some good commentaries on Genesis written by scholars with differencing viewpoints, and as you read them, pray earnestly to God for Him to teach you His truths in Genesis from the use of these books and to protect you from error. Yes, it is a little bit if work—but it is more that worth the trouble!

 

Count me in, JGrubbs!!! All other thoughts are thought on "sinking sand!"

Bro. David

 

"Hogwash" -- nice, informed, intelligent response, Craig. I have noticed something about your responses...somehow we are supposed to take your word for things. Now, I don't mind doing that with God, but I do prefer when a human being can back up his statements with some kind of real facts and/or research. Silly of me, I suppose, but when you spend so much time disagreeing with what the Bible 'seems' to mean, it might be the better part of wisdom to explain, at least, why. "Hogwash" and accusations about the work of others doesn't cut it.

One of the things that IS 'hogwash' is the day-age theory. It requires that there would have been fruiting trees an eon before the sun and a couple of eons before insects. And perhaps that there were birds before any land animals -- by another eon or so... It order to get around that, you have to start squishing even more of Genesis around to fit with preconceived long age/evolutionary ideas.

The gap theory is no better.

First of all, the word for 'heavens' in Genesis 1 is shamayim, which means, essentially, 'high, lifted up, lofty.' The word for 'earth' means 'that which is firm'. In other words, Genesis 1 can read "In the beginning, God created from nothing (bara), that which is lofty and lifted up and that which is firm." -- or space and mass. The lovely thing about the words God chose to tell us about creation is that they not only are correct and fit the traditional 'heavens and earth' choice of translator's words, but that they also keep right up with what is known by physics -- that we live in a time/space/mass continuum.

The second verse simply takes one part of the first -- the eres -- and explains a little more fully. Whether it was the earth itself, or all newly created mass, it was without form -- had no intrinsic organization or shape at the very first. This fits exactly with what God claims twelve times in the Bible -- that He stretched (completed past tense, not continuing...) out the heavens. That stretching would have caused enormous turbulence in the fabric of space, and the resulting swirling galaxies are testimony to that. You can do the same thing by putting your hands together in a tub of water and pulling them apart rapidly. Whirlpools are formed, continue for awhile, and then die out.

Take a little colored jello (easy to see that way) and put some in a bowl of cold water (so it won't dissolve too fast) and mix it all up fast with a spoon for a couple of seconds. Then pull the spoon out and watch. You will see a galaxy form, with the majority of the crystals in the middle and, for a short time, a series of 'spiral arms' swirling around it.

It didn't take billions of years for God, either...

But back to the gap idea -- the Hebrew itself does not allow for it. The structure of verses one and two are common and we still use that technique today. One easy way to picture it is to remember the opening scenes of The Sound of Music and the magnificent camera sweep of the Austrian Alps. Then the camera narrows its focus to one young lady walking through the hills there, and the story begins.

You couldn't have a better picture of what God is doing in Genesis 1:1-1:2.

The gap theory also runs into another problem. Light is not commanded to come forth, or show up, until verse 3. That means that some entire billions of years -- if the gap theory is being argued -- there was a universe functioning with no light at all.

Now, a photon of light is emitted when an electron, after being forced out of its position relative to the nucleus, snaps back into that position, releasing whatever energy caused it to move out in the first place.

So if there was no light for billions of years, you have also just claimed there was no atomic motion, or at least that there was nothing to disturb any electron in the cosmos for that time.

But when we look at verse 2 of Genesis 1, we see something interesting. The word for "deep", which is what there was darkness over, is "t'hom." It means a surging mass, as of water. Thus, we have a great deal of motion! The Holy Spirit is 'hovering' or 'brooding' over this. The verb used there is rachaph, a primary root meaning to flutter, move, shake, or vibrate.

Again, movement.

It is interesting that the very next sentence after these two indications of massive movement, the Lord says "Let there be light." Not "let light shine upon the darkened earth,", but "Let there BE light." "Let light exist."

And there were Job's 'morning stars' -- the population II stars which we find in the middle and 'halo' of galaxies, which are recognized by the red color of the red giants in their midst.

Both the day/age and gap ideas have to contradict all of that and squish new and additional meanings into a clear reading, no matter what language the reading is in.

And Brother David (Blackbird) brings up the classic and best argument: the days are numbered ordinally and marked by evening and morning -- neither of which would happen in a day/age theory and the first day of which is totally massacred in the gap theory.

In other words, there was some actual study and a tiny bit of knowledge behind my 'hogwash.'

Is there behind yours?

You state Genesis is full of spiritual truth. Since when does God couch spiritual truth in myth, lies, distortions, etc? He uses real history, real people, real physical truth to demonstrate spiritual truths. That is what Jesus did in the Parables -- he used what the people knew -- harvests, weeds, pearls, money, trees -- to demonstrate spiritual truths.

Romans 1 says a good portion of truth about God is in the creation itself so that no man has an excuse.

You will also find that when an allegory or poetic license is being used, the Bible is very clear about that -- especially in the Greek and Hebrew -- as the very grammatical form itself changes.

Genesis, however, presents itself as eyewitness history, complete with the various authors signing off on their tablets, exact conversations, exact actions, etc. To allegorize or mythologize it is to refuse it as it presents itself.

What other piece of ancient literature do people do that to?

 

Helen wrote,

Helen,

You apparently missed the linguistic structure of my posts. I quoted three of your paragraphs, replied to each one of them with the word "Hogwash," and then stated below why each of the three paragraphs was hogwash. Please either read my posts carefully like Scott J and the others are doing, or refrain from posting about them.

Helen, you have it exactly backwards here, and you KNOW that! I have repeatedly posted in threads in which you were a participant that my readers do not know my identity, and for all they know I could be psych patient posting from Saint Mary’s of Bethlehem, and that they should NOT, therefore, take my word about anything but check out what I post to learn for themselves what is true and what is not. And I very frequently strongly urge my readers to pray and ask God to teach them the truth and protect them from error. You, on the other hand, . . . .

 

That is one of the most ridiculous assertions ever made.

According to you it is helpful to question the book that provides the very basis for the plan of salvation? Man fell through Adam. If Adam didn't literally fall, we aren't literally lost.

The greatest danger now and always is recreating/distorting the gospel to please men. The Bible isn't designed to tickle the ears of those wise in their own conceit. It isn't written to glorify the philosophies, wisdom, and scientific interpretations of vain men. It is designed to reveal an omnipotent, omniscient, holy God. It is designed to leave us in awe of the power of One who could speak the universe into existence... not to limit Him to the presuppositions of naturalists.

Jesus, Paul, and all of the writers of the NT treated Genesis as literal. Period. If they aren't reliable on whether Adam was a real man or Noah's flood a judgment on the entire world... then who in their right mind would trust them to tell them how to attain salvation for their eternal soul?

Read 1 Corinthians. It is addressed to people very much like yourself. The Greeks loved wisdom and found Christianity to be an affront to wisdom.

Look at what you are writing. You are saying that since these "wise" people will not accept God's Word then God and His Word should be humbled and submitted to their wisdom. You are saying that the gospel must be molded around their pride.

The Bible clearly declares that God saves the humble, contrite, repentant sinner. Nowhere does it say that salvation must allow men to retain any of their old ways and ideas.

Whether evolution is right or wrong, no one can ever come to Christ holding anything back. If people aren't willing to give up beliefs on origins or anything else to accept Christ then they aren't ready to accept Christ.

Or in the case you describe indoctrinated. Just because an intelligent person is taught something by intelligent people does not make that something true.

I refer to it often but the best and brightest minds in Nazi Germany taught and believed in aryan supremacy and that Jews should be exterminated. They claimed to stand on documented science.

Your position is contrary to that of Paul. The "educated" in his day thought of Christians the way you think of "extremists fundamentalists". There were not many wise people among them. Yet Paul didn't compromise the scriptures. He preached that men should humbly submit to them.

You persistently make false associations. I would imagine that most KJVO's are YEC. However, most YEC's are not KJVO.

BTW, if that was your attitude then it was more a demonstration of your arrogant pride than anything those "pitifully ignorant" Christians did or thought wrong.

The problem is that you became your own standard of truth. And from that basis you make the judgment that anyone who disagrees with you is lazy, careless, arrogant, ignorant, and/or stupid. Your own mind and opinion are the standard. You have decided that naturalistic presuppositions are the rule for interpretting prehistoric, natural history evidence in spite of, not because of what Genesis says.

You have said that Noah's flood is impossible, not because the OT doesn't say it or because the NT doesn't affirm it but because men operating within the bounds of naturalism say it couldn't happen and you agree with them by your own intelligence... but there is faith involved in that choice. That faith is in your own opinion and that of men who agree with you.

 

So did Balaam's donkey really speak? Is that an allegory or else a miracle small enough for God to actually accomplish the way scripture says?

Your arrogance knows no bounds. Thanks though. I suspect that most people here recognize by your vain behavior that you are not someone to be trusted to tell them the truth.

 

Craig, it is not up to us to validate what you say, it is up to YOU to validate what you say.

And that includes your slurs on my husband's work. If you cannot validate what you have said there, you owe him a public apology.

 

It's well known that wealth is a deterrent to becoming a Christian, simply because of the temptation to trust the almighty $ rather than God; so some people are better off never having much more $ than is necessary to live.

By the same token, some people can have an over-abundance of education that seems to yield the same result.

Without any names being called, who here seems to rely virtually 100 % on (his/her) education to be their salvation?

As the old adage says, "He's educated beyond his intelligence".

I DO believe that adage is proving true.

 

Craig did raise a good point. We are hurting the church by making young-earth creationism a Christianity "sine qua non".

I agree that we should contend earnestly against abortion and against establishment of gay marriage.

But in contending that we must believe in a literal 6 day account forces many people to choose.

Unfortunately Craig is right that many do consider Christianity to be a religion for fools and hypocrites.

If one wants to believe a literal 6 day creation then fine. But don't insist that to believe otherwise is incompatible with Christianity. That chases away people who have questions - if they are told not to ask such things. These people end up rejecting the faith of their childhoods - to the destruction of their very souls.

 

Was that the point you got? I didn't see that kind of graciousness anywhere in what he wrote. In fact, it seems to me that he called us baboons and suggested that we were ignorant, stupid, and/or dishonest.

I advocate the position. I argue for the position but I have not said that people cannot be good, honest, intelligent, informed Christians and disagree with me... as Craig has.

So? You expect the world to not see our flaws? You don't think it would be just as easy for Satan to use the fact that Craig denies the truth of one part of scripture that seems fantastic (like the flood) but states that another miraculous part is literal, foundational truth (like the resurrection)?

It is incompatible with the biblical text unless you turn that text into uninspired fable that must be interpretted by the rules of ancient mythological literature.

I love for people to ask such things. Paul nor Christ ever compromised what scripture said in order to gain the acceptance of people with questions. They proclaimed the authority and truth of scripture... only the humble would accept it.

That isn't a justification for not proclaiming the Bible true. It isn't a justification for shying away from what the Bible says even though the world system scoffs at it.

These people are unfortunately placing their faith in what men say over what the Bible says. If it weren't origins, it could easily be something else.

For instance, I find the existence of heaven far more difficult to conceive than the idea that God spoke the universe into existence in a fraction of a second.

 

This is something that just came to me and not necessarily related to anything anyone has said in this thread, because I haven't really been following it.

I've often heard young earth creationists say that the reason we see the light of the stars, etc., is because the world was created with the appearance of age. They compare this to the creation of the fishes and loaves to feed the hungry crowd. If God made the fishes out of nothing and they seemed to be mature fish, why couldn't he make a universe and make it seem mature?

There's a flaw with this, though. With fish, we know that there is a natural way for them to come into existence--a fish lays an egg, they hatch out, and they swim about and slowly grow. Saying that the universe was created with the appearance of age rather assumes that there is a natural way for universes to spring into existence--by a big bang followed by expansion and collescence and the eventual formation of stars and planets. However, young earthers deny that this is a valid means of universe creation. This leaves the question: If God made the universe out of nothing as it is a mere few thousand years ago, why would he make it appear to have come about by a natural means billions of years ago when that in fact never happens at all?

The more I think about it the odder it seems that God would make a universe that is supposed to be so young yet is explained so well by an old universe model. If it is true that God just made it to look old and then tells us to believe that is new, it seems to me that would be sort of like a husband telling his wife, "I would never cheat on you," and then sending himself flowers and leaving lipstick stains on his shirts to test her faith!

 

I will presume to speak for other YE's when I object to this statement of our position. I accept that it is "possible". However, I deny that it is valid since I believe it to be much less consistent with scripture.

You mean besides the fact that you have made an unproven association between the procreation of fish and the singular creation of the universe?

The more I think about it the odder it seems that Christians would accept that the earth is so old when the Bible explains so well that it is not.

If it is true that Christians accept a theory of men that claims the universe is old over the objection of God that it is young it seems to me that would be sort of like a husband calling his wife a cheating adulterous because a known liar in town claimed to have seduced her.

 

This issue is being debated here but that does not mean we are all making it a "sine qua non" of christianity.

I don't think that is being done. Those who believe in the 6 day creation account are simply arguing that view. It is Craig who is saying that those who believe this are embarrassing him and we should give our bibles away.

Yes, and it was that way in the early church and will be that until Jesus returns. I don't think ignorance or shameful behavior should be a part of Christianity and thereby be a stumbling block to unbelievers, but what we have here are people who simply believe the Gen. account as it is written. There are scholarly people who believe this, too. Those who believe the literal 6 day creation should not be called ignorant and uneducated just because they believe this. That is an ad hominem. It's not dealing with the issues.

I don't know that anyone here is insisting that someone is not a Christian if they do not accept the literal account of Gen. I do not say that. But I think those of us who believe this have a right to continue to argue that view, just as the other side has their right to argue their side. And this should be done without either side putting down the other side. But that is not what is happening. I consistently have seen on the BB those who take Gen. 1-11 literally called ignorant, foolish, uneducated, etc. by certain people. I'm pretty tired of it, quite frankly.