CREATION: TWO BASIC VIEWS

Historically the notion that we can depend on scripture interpretation to decide questions of cosmology has been proven to lead scriptural interpreters astray. The catholic church persecuted Galileo on this basis and the protestants all argued against Copernicus, believing they could accept the literal word of God when it said that it was the sun that stopped moving, not the earth in Joshua.

They were wrong. They might have been spared the ignomy of their error if they had evaluated the evidence objectively, but their religous imperitives would not allow them to do this.

In the same way, the evidence today for an old universe - billions of years old - is compelling. It is being ignored by people such as the posters to this thread who feel that their interpretation of scripture trumps evidence. It does not.

 

Thbis is very misleading however. The word YOM as used in Genesis one only means a 24 hour day. It is a non construct followed by an ordinal number. The construction you are looking for here is when YOM is used with modifiers such as a construct relationship, or when it is modified by other phrases the clarify. A good example is to compare the YOM in Gen 1 with the YOM in 2:4. The difference is not obvious in English which is why many people are led astray. However, if you pull out your Hebrew text, you will see immediately the difference. One of the most preeminent Hebrew scholars today, Bruce Waltke, admits that the author intended to communicate 24 hour days. Waltke thinks that the author used them metaphorically. But he admits what the author is talking about.

 

Although it is nice for many to show other "links" to this subject, I would prefer your expertise written in your post.

I'm afraid our expertise on this subject is very limited. I doubt many here are Astrophyscists. I can't even spell it. At least I speak for myself only.

 

Although I “strongly” disagree with Joshua’s, as you stated, attack on the Bible, I am sure Joshua didn’t meant it as an attack. He is simply stating the very foundation upon which liberalism rests.

He may call himself a Baptist, but his Church, if he is still a member of the Virginia-Highland Church (He is listed as the Associate Minister), joined with the United Churches of Christ and “jettisoned” the Baptist name last year. I assume he can still call himself a Baptist.

http://www.oakhurstbaptist.org/obc/sermons/2002_06_30_lanny_rel_freedom.htm

http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/aug02/churches.htm

Randall

 

Bob, no attempt to be snide, just a genuine answer to the question. Why are there two creation accounts in Genesis? Because two different versions of the myth were put in one place.

As for the church, it's full name is Virginia-Highland Church, a Baptist and UCC Congregation. Although still a part of the CBF and the Alliance of Baptists, we joined the UCC as part of the Alliance's larger ecumenical dialogue with them. We did not have to sacrifice and baptist distinctives to do so, and I think it is a good relationship for us and for them.

As for my "denying the Word of God," recognizing the canonical writings for what they are is in no way un-baptist.

Joshua

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/genesisquestion/gq9.shtml?main

Myth?

 

I go along with a young age for the earth also (about 6000 years ago). I have listened to several of Ken Hovind's messages, he is quite good. The Bible teaches about 2000 years between creation and Abraham. By the time of Moses there was no confusion as to what is a day (24 hours). To me the numbers given (by God) as to the ages of so many from Adam to Solomon, and being specific as to various events that took place on this day of this month, etc. would be a total waste of effort if the humbers and times did not mean what everyone thought they meant until the last few years.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? KJV

If we can't believe that God created the heaven and the earth in the time specified in Genesis then how are we to believe anyone's words in the Bible.

 

Some people have referenced the 'Reasons to Believe' site. It is a good example of a Christian ministry that believes in very long creation days.

A good book I've read is called, "The Creationsists", by Ronald L. Numbers. This book demonstrates that a very long creation day view was held by many notable Christians and denominations, as far back as the 1800's, and they had good reasons for believing this. Even in antiquity, many "chruch fathers", as it were, held to the possibility that creation days might be long, or longer at least.

Some one asked Rev. Josh how he could believe the Bible if he thought the creation accounts were mythological.

Myths can communicate profound truths.

Everyone knows of C.S. Lewis, an often quoted Christian writer and apologist.

J.R.R. Tolkein was a key person involved in discussions about faith and mythology that played an important role in Lewis's eventual conversion to Christianity.

It has been reported that Lewis once remarked to Tolkein that "...myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver...".

Tolkein told Lewis that myths, rather than being unfactual lies, could be the best way of expressing truths that may very well remain inexpressible otherwise.

Tolkein went on to explain to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the heart of our history and reality.

Tolkein expressed the view to Lewis that although man may at times pervert his thoughts into lies, man ultimately comes from God, and ultimately draws his thoughts from God, so that even man's imaginings can contain a kernal of or reflect some truth.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ww1/spring2000/Glenn/Lewis.htm
http://www.thecrackedpot.net/3-3/InklingsLewisBio.html

 

My view is that the first 11 chapters of Genesis offer a theological history of humanity - not a literal or a scientific one. They are old stories gathered by the God's covenant people because they felt that those stories accurately reflected the nature of their relationship with God.

Consequently, I rely on the scientific community for scientific information, and the Bible for my theology. It seems that the general consensus in the scientific community is that the Solar System and the Earth are several billion years old. I trust their judgement.

Joshua

 

do you actually think that the length of time in a day(day=light to darkness)has EVOLVED into shorter or longer time periods?

 

The debate is such because is people accept the biblical account, then they have to accept everything else in Scripture. The easiest way to destroy the trustworthiness of Scripture is to destroy its foundations. There is no scientific evidence that refutes the normal understanding of Genesis. It is only when one's presuppositions about science are injected does one feel the need to come up with long days of creation. Apart from the theories of OEC or evolution, there is no scientific need for long days. The 6 successive 24 hour day teaching of Genesis does just fine.

Joshua comments that he accepts Scripture for what it is, when he reality he ignores what it says. He talks of two creation accounts. It is amazing that as many ways as Joshua and his *edit objectionable designation* have found to circumvent the clear biblical teaching on so many things, that they have not applied their ingenuity to this one to see that there is only one creation account. In reality there is no need for ingenuity. There is only one account. But it shows the inconsistency of Joshua's method. As long as the plain text appears to support his view, he will accept it (i.e., two creation stories in Gen). But when the plain text clearly refutes his view, he will find a creative explanation (i.e., miracles, etc.).

I am one who believes in a limited time for a couple of reasons. 1) The fact that God would probably not want mankind in an untested relationship for very long. 2) The fact that there were no babies. It seems likely that Adam and Eve would have quickly participated in the joys of human marriage and would have soon brought offspring into existence. This offspring, coming from two untainted parents, would have had no sin nature. This leads us to less than a month, most likely, that Adam were in the garden without the test. There is no need to see a long period of time.

[ February 01, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

IF it had been days longer than 24 hours. Stated another way, if they had been in Eden for thousands of years, then for sure there would have been many sinless humans and they themselves also having children

Am I missing something? If they were created at the beginning of the 7th day, why would they have to be in the garden for a thousand years? By the way, those who believe in "long days" say we are still in the 7th day.

 

Some one mentioned the BIG BANG!!

Ah yes, where everything came out of nothing from nowhere acted upon by nobody in a perfect vacuum at absolute zero.

So why is In the beginning God... any more or less believable?

I like the 24 hour day "theory" myself.

But could our Father in heaven pack millions-billions of years worth of work into six days?


HankD