A literal 6 24-hr days?

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Christians who accept that evolution is part of God's creation have no problem at all with Genesis.

Yes they do. They have to wiggle their way out of all kinds of things the Bible says!

Wrong. They merely don't agree with what you say it says. Your interpretation of Genesis is not Genesis.

In other words, they don't dare depend on God --

In other words, they don't believe you. You and God are distinct entities.

they are forced to depend on themselves and their own minds.

You, like they, had to use your mind to decide what to make of His word to us. You came up with a slightly unusual interpretation. That doesn't mean you don't depend on God; it just means you have your own desires and preconceptions. Fortunately, it won't affect your salvation.

Since the natural mind of man is corrupted by sin, that puts those who are in that position in a very difficult position.

Yes. And this is why you (who use your mind to understand Scripture) and orthodox Christians (who also do that) at odds.

The fact that Genesis is telling the straightforward truth about creation is just that: a fact.

Orthodox Christians agree with you. We just don't accept that your word is the Word of God.

Galatian does not accept that.

Galatian accepts Genesis as it is. Galatian does not accept the word of Helen, which is distinct from the Word of God.

That is his choice. But it does not change the truth about creation in six days less than ten thousand years ago.

As you saw from the Scopes trial, even fundamentalists a couple of generations ago did not agree that the Earth was that young.

YE creationism is a very recent doctrine, and not a Scriptural one.

 

[Helen]

Responses:

Meatros – I think God Himself wrote Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a, actually. The Bible does say He Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on stone…

Evolution, Meatros, is the result of a belief system – the belief that man has enough brains to figure out the truth about life and the cosmos itself. We are incredibly arrogant to think that. However, God has told us a lot about all of that and evolutionists, preferring their own minds, refuse to believe Him. That makes evolution a belief system at least in part if not the whole.

Paul of Eugene – Job 38:7 refers to the morning stars. The first morning was day one. Genesis 1:16b says, almost in passing, that God made the stars also. There is no time given there. Genesis 1:14-16a refers explicitly to the sun and moon. When we let Bible explain Bible, it appears there were stars shining that first morning. Interestingly, astronomers recognize what they refer to as two populations of stars – those which were formed first – the population II stars – and then the population I stars which were formed later. From what I can see in the Bible, these two things match.

Barbarian/Galatian – “My” interpretation of Genesis? I don’t have to interpret it. It SAYS God created the world in six days. It SAYS plants and animals were created by kind and were to reproduce that way. It SAYS man was not from an animal but his body was formed directly from the elements (or dust of the earth, if you like). It SAYS that only green plants were food for man and the land and air animals with nephesh. When you deny these things, you are not disagreeing with “my” interpretation of the Bible, for I interpreted nothing there! That’s just what it says. You are disagreeing with the Bible itself and putting your own interpretation on it!

No one has to believe me! The Bible says what it says. It is the Bible you are not believing, except inasmuch as it suits you.

Evolution, in the mean time, is not the result of a godly mind, but of a depraved one: Darwin’s and Co. Those who are born again of God have the mind of Christ, and therefore I can depend on Him to show me the truth.

You said my word is distinct from the Word of God. No problem with that. But I listed for you above the things you don’t agree with. Are you telling me these things are not in the Bible, but that I made them up? It is only if I made them up you can call them “not Scriptural.” However, if you happen to find that the Bible indicates – or even says straight out – that creation occurred in six days, each of which had a morning and an evening, that animals are referred to by kind, that man was formed out of the dust (or clay) of the ground, then what I believe is Scriptural and no one needs pay any attention to me at all – only to God’s Word. All I’m doing is presenting what it says.

Evolution denies God’s Word. That’s it in the long and the short of it.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
Paul of Eugene – Job 38:7 refers to the morning stars. The first morning was day one. Genesis 1:16b says, almost in passing, that God made the stars also. There is no time given there. Genesis 1:14-16a refers explicitly to the sun and moon. When we let Bible explain Bible, it appears there were stars shining that first morning. Interestingly, astronomers recognize what they refer to as two populations of stars – those which were formed first – the population II stars – and then the population I stars which were formed later. From what I can see in the Bible, these two things match.

This implies agrement with the theories of astronomers of dividing into Population I and II stars. But this is based on observations about the differences in the two populations. The primary difference is that the older Population II stars are metal poor (defining metals as anything heavier than He) while the Population I stars are comparatively metal rich. The theory explains this as being because the younger stars have been seeded with heavier elements from the first generation of stars.

Additional evidence is provided by the masses of the stars in each population. Population I stars include the most massive stars in the galaxy. The only Population II stars that exist in the galaxy are the lower weight, long life stars. Stars that old would have long since burned through their fuel if they were very massive.

Reading on Barry's website, he points out these two differences in the populations himself.

The "young" or Population I stars, like our Sun, have a relatively high "metal," or heavy element content, such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc, (up to 3%), and generally inhabit the spiral arms of our Galaxy. The largest stars of this type are massive, brilliant, hot blue giants, which cause the spiral arms of distant galaxies to appear predominantly blue. By contrast, the "old" or Population II stars are metal poor (0.1%), and can be found in the halo, hub and disk of our Galaxy, and in most globular clusters around it. The largest stars of this type are the cool red giants with vast, tenuous outer layers, which contrasts with their highly condensed cores. These red giants cause the hubs of spiral galaxies to take on a reddish tint.

But I cannot find in the writing an attempt to show how his model accounts for the differences. Instead, my reading implies that you would expect to find the opposite situation with regard to metal content in the c-decay theory. It is repeatedly pointed out that higher c values would lead to an increased rate of atomic processes. So would not the older stars, the ones that would have spent a longer time in the increased atomic rate time generating heavy elements in their cores, be expected to have a higher metal content than those stars which had not had as long to do so? The mainstream theory of the younger stars being formed from the remains of the older stars cannot happen if you have four days to send the original stars through their lifetimes, explode them as supernovae, and then incorporate the material in a new generation of stars with gravity operating just as it does today.

And what of the handful of even older stars with metal contents of 1/200th to 1/20,000th of the metal content of the Population II stars that could be part of the earlier Population III. See http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he0107.htm

So, though science agrees with you that the stars can be divided into the various ages, it disagrees with how to explain the observations. How do you explain the observations?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oops, double post -

[ May 18, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
Meatros – I think God Himself wrote Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a, actually. The Bible does say He Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on stone…

The Bible says scriptures came by inspiring men:
2 Peter 1:21 " . . . holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Evolution, Meatros, is the result of a belief system – the belief that man has enough brains to figure out the truth about life and the cosmos itself. We are incredibly arrogant to think that.

The Bible says it is OK for men to discover the secrets of God:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings (NIV)

Paul of Eugene – Job 38:7 refers to the morning stars. The first morning was day one. Genesis 1:16b says, almost in passing, that God made the stars also. There is no time given there. Genesis 1:14-16a refers explicitly to the sun and moon. When we let Bible explain Bible, it appears there were stars shining that first morning. Interestingly, astronomers recognize what they refer to as two populations of stars – those which were formed first – the population II stars – and then the population I stars which were formed later. From what I can see in the Bible, these two things match.

The Bible says the sun, moon and stars were placed in the firmament. The Bible further states the firmament did not even exist until day two.

I don’t have to interpret it. It SAYS God created the world in six days. It SAYS plants and animals were created by kind and were to reproduce that way. It SAYS man was not from an animal but his body was formed directly from the elements (or dust of the earth, if you like). It SAYS that only green plants were food for man and the land and air animals with nephesh. When you deny these things, you are not disagreeing with “my” interpretation of the Bible, for I interpreted nothing there! That’s just what it says. You are disagreeing with the Bible itself and putting your own interpretation on it!

It is your interpretation that these must be taken literally and yet you need not hold to the literalness of the day the stars were created.

Consider Luke 11:46:

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

One cannot believe that men were both created before all the other animals (Genesis 2:18-19) and after all the other animals (Genesis 1:24-26)

We are forced to regard these as other than literal somewhere along the line!

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian/Galatian – “My” interpretation of Genesis? I don’t have to interpret it.

But you do. See below...

It SAYS God created the world in six days. It SAYS plants and animals were created by kind and were to reproduce that way.

You've confused an allegory with a literal history. Because a literal interpretation such as yours, leads to logical contradictions, we know it cannot be literal.

It SAYS man was not from an animal but his body was formed directly from the elements (or dust of the earth, if you like).

Genesis also says that other living things were formed from the Earth. We are like them, except that God breathed the breath of life into us and that made all the difference.

It SAYS that only green plants were food for man and the land and air animals with nephesh.

[

Are you sure that "only" isn't your addition to Scripture? It's little alterations like that, that lead you astray.

When you deny these things, you are not disagreeing with “my” interpretation of the Bible, for I interpreted nothing there!

As pointed out above, you did exactly that. You simply assumed that what you wanted was what God said.

No one has to believe me!

Most Christians don't, but what counts is that you understand what God is telling you therein. If you get that, it won't matter if you accept the way He created things or not.

The Bible says what it says.

True. But as noted above, it doesn't say what you say.

It is the Bible you are not believing, except inasmuch as it suits you.

I'm just not buying the extra stuff you're putting in it.

Evolution, in the mean time, is not the result of a godly mind, but of a depraved one: Darwin’s and Co. Those who are born again of God have the mind of Christ, and therefore I can depend on Him to show me the truth.

In fact, both Darwin and Wallace were Christians when they discovered how evolution works. A godly mind accepts God's creation as it is. Hence, most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with our belief.

You said my word is distinct from the Word of God.

Yep. See above.

No problem with that. But I listed for you above the things you don’t agree with. Are you telling me these things are not in the Bible, but that I made them up?

At least one of them is a simple insertion of your word into His. Others are just your attempt to make figurative language literal.

It is only if I made them up you can call them “not Scriptural.”

Any time you try to make figurative passages into literal ones, you have altered God's word.

However, if you happen to find that the Bible indicates – or even says straight out – that creation occurred in six days, each of which had a morning and an evening, that animals are referred to by kind, that man was formed out of the dust (or clay) of the ground, then what I believe is Scriptural and no one needs pay any attention to me at all – only to God’s Word. All I’m doing is presenting what it says.

The key words are "if" and "I believe". Your interpretation is not orthodox.

Evolution denies God’s Word.

You might as well say gravity denies God's word. God created these things, and they cannot contradict Him.

 

[BobRyan]

Our creationist bretheren say "I believe in God's Word, The Bible - AND I believe what it actually says".

The evolutionist says "Sure I accept the Bible - ...as myth".

So "both" are saying they "accept God's Word" but the First model is prone to "exegesis" and the second model is prone to "I-suppose" theology that strikes at the heart of the Gospel.

In the case of the "literal 7 day creation week" (the title of this thread) - one has to ask "what is the source of the 7-day-week idea"? What do you accept as your source? Is it going to be God's Word? Or will it be "I-suppose" and "I-guesswork" done to imagine what might have happened 4 billion years ago?

The good news is that our Creationist bretheren have the integrity to admit that "quesswork" forms the foundation of evolutionism - and also have the integrity to admit that the Gospel requires "literal belief" in God's Word - the Bible.

Can there be any doubt of these obvious points?

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Our creationist bretheren say "I believe in God's Word, The Bible - AND I believe what it actually says".

The evolutionist says "Sure I accept the Bible - ...as myth".

Hm...Maybe, but the theistic evolutionist would say that the bible a whole lot more then a myth.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So "both" are saying they "accept God's Word" but the First model is prone to "exegesis" and the second model is prone to "I-suppose" theology that strikes at the heart of the Gospel.

Actually no this isn't true. Someone who accepts the theory of evolution is not automatically a Christian, or even a theist. On the other hand a person who accepts evolution and Christ as their savior is a Christian. Also, no matter what, whomever is reading the bible is doing the interpreting as it is overwhelmingly obvious that it can not be taken literally.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In the case of the "literal 7 day creation week" (the title of this thread) - one has to ask "what is the source of the 7-day-week idea"? What do you accept as your source? Is it going to be God's Word? Or will it be "I-suppose" and "I-guesswork" done to imagine what might have happened 4 billion years ago?

Actually it's going to be: WHAT am I going to accept as my interpretation of God's word.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The good news is that our Creationist bretheren have the integrity to admit that "quesswork" forms the foundation of evolutionism - and also have the integrity to admit that the Gospel requires "literal belief" in God's Word - the Bible.

Actually whomever asserts that evolution is "guesswork" clearly doesn't understand how science works. The Gospel doesn't require a "literal belief", no matter how many times you post it Bob.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Can there be any doubt of these obvious points?

Bob

Of course not, you continue to create strawmen and engage in deceptive rhetoric. You are not the spokesman for Christianity or evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The good news is that our Creationist bretheren have the integrity to admit that "quesswork" forms the foundation of evolutionism - and also have the integrity to admit that the Gospel requires "literal belief" in God's Word - the Bible.

Now this is a key point here. Just because there is no foundation for developing evolutionary theory IN THE BIBLE does not mean there is NO FOUNDATION for developing evolutionary theory. Because there are other ways of learning things besides reading them in the Bible. In fact, evolutionary theory was developed and continues to be developed based on evidence from what God has created.

 

[Helen]

Paul, the point is actually not that there is no foundation for evolution in the Bible, but two other points, instead:

1. The Bible specifically presents against evolution (apart from variation)

and

2. Evolution has no foundation apart from rebellion against God. I am not saying that every evolutionist is in rebellion, but that the foundation of this idea is rebellion. It for sure is not in biology!

 

[Meatros]

Would you care to prove that Helen?

 

[Meatros]

How do you explain this: Chimps are human, gene study implies

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:

Paul, the point is actually not that there is no foundation for evolution in the Bible, but two other points, instead: 1. The Bible specifically presents against evolution (apart from variation) and 2. Evolution has no foundation apart from rebellion against God. I am not saying that every evolutionist is in rebellion, but that the foundation of this idea is rebellion. It for sure is not in biology!

The idea that the Bible specifically presents against evolution is an interpretation of the Biblical point of view. On the side of the us evolutionists, consider that the Bible says, first of all, that God did not directly create the plants from nothing, but cause the earth to bring forth vegetation, Genesis 1:11. In like fashion, the waters brought forth the sea creatures, the earth brought forth the land animals, in their respective verses.

The Bible speaks of all living things being brought forth after their kind. This phrase "after their kind" has been coopted by creationists to speak of a "kind" barrier, beyond which a species may not vary, but can equally be interpreted to refer to the way each kingdom of life carries forth according to its kind; within each kingdom, each family carries forth according to its kind; and so forth on down to the species level. Thus all birds probagated according to their kind, then in that catagory all raptors probagated according to their kind, then in that catagory all eagles probagated according to their kind, then in that catagory all golden eagles probated according to their kind.

It is true that the creation narrative speaks of evenings and mornings. But could these not also considered "beginnings" and "endings" of appropriate periods? As in the day = age theory, only it is necessary to also understand them to not be one in direct succession to another, but overlapping in time. Six great creation periods are referred to, each mentioning a catogory of something that is created within that period.

Sort of like considering stars to be created not on day four but day one, you know.

If you think the language as we have it now can't bear that kind of interpretation, perhaps the language as we have it now isn't the original language. As you know, there is such a thing as scribal error in copying information. This can occur especially when the concepts he is copying are outside the usual world view of the scribe.

I don't think you personally need proof such copying errors have in fact occurred in the transmission of our present text.

As for your remark about evolution being founded in rebellion against God, I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. Darwin and others are quite clear about why they proposed the theory of evolution. They didn't cite anything about rebelling against God as a valid reason for accepting evolution, instead they point to apparantly grouping of animals into related families, the fossil record that extends this relationship into the deep past, the power of evolutionary theory to explain vestigal organs and predict what kind of fossils to expect will be found; the marvelous confirming evidence from molecular studies of protein family relationships and how that carries forth now into the very structure of the genes shows the same family relationships; the special finding of many vestigal developments within the embryo; and so forth.

If genetics can be used to prove paternity and kinship among humans - and it can - why can't you accept how it also proves kinship between species?

It's not rebelling against God to accept the findings of science. One can more logically accept the reverse - it is rebellion against God to deny such a great and wonderful truth as the truth discovered by science as to how life has evolved. After all, the scriptures urge us to get wisdom. Rejecting wisdom, such as the insights of science, is therefore contrary to the will of God.

 

[A_Christian]

Evolutionists don't know everything because they
have not found everything nor have they studied
everything. They most certainly have not studied
GOD. Most evolutionists will only say that is
because there is no GOD. So what makes you
different? Could it be that you place your trust
in the "traditions" of your church? Seems a
poor trade off for the Word of God.

 

[Meatros]

Evolutionists don't know everything because they have not found everything nor have they studied everything.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolutionists support evolution, which is only concerned with changes in the gene pool over time.

They most certainly have not studied
GOD. Most evolutionists will only say that is
because there is no GOD.

Provide proof of this assertion-I believe you are coming very close to bearing false witness. You do realize there are more 'evolutionist' christians then literal ones, right?

Could it be that you place your trust
in the "traditions" of your church? Seems a
poor trade off for the Word of God.

Your post is riddled with assumptions.

 

[Charlotte Marcel]

The Bible uses Allegory, figures of speech and other literary devices on occasion. Often this is obvious, but occasionally sincere scholars disagree on whether a passage is literal or symbolic. But is this the case in Genesis 1-11? The answer is a resounding "no". I am making the seemingly bold claim here that there is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what a child, picking it up for the first time without preconceptions, has always seen as obvious.

I suggest that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.

To disbelieve it brings the following problems:

1. How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well--that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity?
2. What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us 'true truth' about historical characters and events?
3. What happens to the very basis of the Gospel - that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Saviour shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)?

Those who insist that the days could be millions of years often forget that these "millions of years", in the popular view, are represented by layers of fossils which are interpreted not as the results of the biblical Flood, but as creatures having lived (with struggle and bloodshed) and died before anyone called Adam could have appeared.

To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including scientists, can accept.

God Bless You,
Charlotte

 

[Meatros]

To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including scientists, can accept.

Truth does not mean literal. If you wish to reject the overwhelming evidence of an old Universe-that's your business. However be aware that the literal view is not the popular view, nor the only one to have and still be a christian. The following is taken from Theistic Evolution:

Theologians of all stripes have agreed for thousands of years that beginning of Genesis provides a foundation for our faith. It is not "just a faith account," but the primary purpose is to communicate a message of faith.

As a scientific account that describes the present state of our universe, Genesis is not a very good description. One could easily get the impression that planet Earth is at the center of the solar system. Morning and evening happen for three days without benefit of the sun. The firmament sounds like a big blue dome above the atmosphere, or at least a firm demarcation between man's zone and God's realm. In several places rain seems to come from windows in the sky that are opened to let pour out the water that is held up there. You would think that the words "sphere" or "round" would appear somewhere. We are already interpreting Scripture in the light of science.

Remember that in delivering Genesis by means of fallible humans, God had to thread the account through thousands of years of well-meaning scribes who would be tempted to excise nonsense about the earth orbiting around the sun. Also recall that it took great effort to produce a Bible until Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1454. In Genesis God had some very important things to communicate to us, and there was no good reason to include pages of details about the physical layout of the cosmos that He knew we would figure out soon enough anyway.

I believe that the same is true for the natural history contained in Genesis. Genesis is not wrong, it is not simply a myth, it is not just a compelling story with no real basis in history. Genesis happened! All of it! But to try to match up each verse with a scientific finding is to ignore the Author's main purpose in giving this account to us. Genesis 1-2 must be read through the eyes of faith, and that is its most important message. If we concentrate too much on the scientific details or mire these chapters in controversy, we will miss the faith message there.

 

[Meatros]

From the same site, this is in regards to mankinds fall:

This objection to theistic evolution states that if the Fall is not literal, if it never really happened, then Mankind is not fallen and there is no need for Christ. It's a serious objection, something that calls into question the basis of the Gospels and the coming of Jesus Christ.

1. Certain people may argue that we are primarily animals in our behavior since we have 98% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees. They reason that we are not fallen, we are just doing what animals do.

I reject that argument completely. Aside from the Bible's clear witness to our special status, one has only to look at what mankind has accomplished above and beyond all animals. We have: technology, civilization, law, cooperation, war, genocide, exploration, art, violence, culture, and literature. Our behavior differs from animals by far more than 2%!

Our capacity for creative endeavor is far beyond the animals, but so is our capacity for Evil. No other animal organizes large armies to attack and destroy other members of the species. No other animal carries out cruelty on the scale that humans have achieved. No other animal is capable of the deliberate, planned, and intentional evil that we see in our human societies and nations. Animals kill each other and not always for food, but only mankind makes the intelligent choice to fall for satan's temptation.

It is blatantly obvious today that Mankind is indeed fallen, no matter what exactly happened thousands of years ago. Arguments that we don't need Christ because we are primarily animals in our behavior are idiotic. The result of Genesis 3 is true; the evidence is overwhelming. Something happened, and it was big. We have fallen. We need God's grace and mercy.

 

[A_Christian]

Meatros:

Let me ask you two simple questions in light of
what you espouse.

Do you believe in TRANSUBTANTIATION?

Do you believe that Peter was being called the
Pope?

 

[A_Christian]

Meatros:

Let me ask you two simple questions in light of
what you espouse.

Do you believe in TRANSUBTANTIATION?

Do you believe that Peter was being called the
Pope?