CREATION: TWO BASIC VIEWS

[Paul of Eugene]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/skeptics/whencreate.shtml?main

Why, then, does Moses use the Hebrew word yowm, translated "day," for the six periods of creation? In English we would use words like "era," "age," or "epoch" to describe long periods of time. But, in Hebrew there are no such words. The word olam is often suggested, but it is defined as "forever," "perpetual," "lasting," "always," "of olden times," or "the remote past, future, or both." its range of usage does not include a set period of time. Thus, yowm would be the most appropriate Hebrew word to refer to a specific, though lengthy, period of time. Even in English we sometimes use the word day for an epoch, as in "the day of the Romans" or "the day of the dinosaurs."

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.

 

[Alex]

TO ALL:

Thanks for the comments from both sides AND keeping it all in a very CIVIL way. To me, to debate i to learn. When it is all said and done(this forum), we can all benefit. I, for one, do not think God, as the Creator, intented for our modern science to be misleading, although some are, such as Radioactive Carbon dating, which they have admitted as not being accurate.

I beleive that God has left us many Bibical mysteries and time lapses. One that comes to mind is that there is nothing about Jesus from age 12 to around age 27. But the original debate subject is the age of Creation.

Although it is nice for many to show other "links" to this subject, I would prefer your expertise written in your post. Many do not go to these links.

This question is to Rev. Josha: You DIDN'T directly indicate your position on this time line. Please do so...thanks!

I hope to be on latter tonight........

God Bless.........Alex

PS: If it is so cut and dried as to 24 hour days, then why is this one of the most debatable subjects? Again, I have been on one side or the other for years but tend to believe in the 24 hour day. My problem is that I can't prove it.

I will have to admit that my limited time for Adam and Eve was wrong. But as one posted, there seems to be a an unknown lenght of time for the first few days of Adam and Eve's life.

[ January 31, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

[Alex]

I forgot to address another point made that we can only "muddy" the waters for new Christians or those seeking Jesus with this type of debate.

I humbly disagree because it is questions such as we are debating that many will ask us. We need to be prepared to at least give a fairly logical answer to keep them with us. Many NEW ones simply will not accept less than some answers to thier questions. Many who will not accept say that Genesis is fiction. This is much more demanding today that back then because of scientific discoveries along with man going to the Moon. I knew many Christians back then say that God would not allow this. So as time goes on, so do changes in the way a person who is seeking Christ changes and we have to meet these needs. The final belief pattern eventually becomes a personal overall view of the Bible. Each church has many who are on one side or the other on this topic. They may not admit it, but when cornered, they often do.

God Bless...........Alex

 

[Dr. Bob]

There is evidence on both sides of the issue, hence the continual debate.

Bible teaches God created everything in six days. Seems cut and dried.

Science (today) teaches God didn't create anything, and that a new God called "Big Bang" (not to be confused with me, Big Bob) started it all.

Both take faith to believe. I personally opt for the Bible version.

And will wait for the Forum to be "up and running" before too much more debate engendered.


(And Brother Joshua's snide attack on the Bible, saying the Genesis accounts are both from the Babylonians Creation Myth, just makes him lose respect in the eyes of many. Sad that he still uses the "Baptist" moniker while denying the Word of God. But HE's probably sad that a fundamentalist Bible-believer like me uses the name HE loves! It goes both ways, as does this debate!)

But we Baptists have soul liberty, so I will not start preparing the scaffolding . . yet!

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

 

[Randall S]

And Brother Joshua's snide attack on the Bible, saying the Genesis accounts are both from the Babylonians Creation Myth, just makes him lose respect in the eyes of many.

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.

Sad that he still uses the "Baptist" moniker while denying the Word of God.

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

 

[Rev. Joshua]

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

 

[Grasshopper]

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

Myth?

 

[Alex]

Rev. Joshua:

You never responded as to which way you believe. As in 6 24 hour days or a much longer Creation time. If longer, please give us your reasoning. Also you said they, Babylonians, said that both Creation events were myths. What is your view?

Thanks.

God Bless........Alex

 

[Artimaeus]

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.

 

[Baptist Vine]

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

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Alex:
Rev. Joshua...What is your view?

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

 

[JOHN3:16]

Originally posted by Alex:
Harvest:

After reading your reply again, I have a collection of over a dozen Creation videos and know fully what you mean. I can assure you that on the other side of the coin, you can get just as many that make sense about Evolution but again Evolution isn't my question.

On the time frame, whether millions of years or 6 24 hour days is the debatable issue and the question again, IS IT A SIN THAT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL TO BELIEVE IN MORE THAN A 24 HOUR DAY? Since so far it has been stated that this can become a heated issue, then many Baptists must believe in 24 hour days as well as many in a much longer time frame. There are many places in the Bible where scriptures are not GOD sent such as in some of Pauls letters to the Church at Corinth where he(Paul) says that some of his writings are from his own thoughts and nor devinely inspired. So, everything that we read may or may not be from God's guidance. The same could be with this time frame. Remember, God is not limited by 24 hour days for anything as He is not subject to time as we humans are. You also have to take into account the historical time that anything in the Bible occoured to properly discern it. I feel that you would agree that much in the time of Jesus doesn't apply to us now as His remarks were to the religious and Pagan leaders during His time.

God Bless...........Alex

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

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by JOHN3:16:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alex:
Harvest:

do you actually think that the length of time in a day(day=light to darkness)has EVOLVED into shorter or longer time periods? </font>[/QUOTE]Bacically, I would say it is still a 24 hour day as we know it. But, it was once assumed that the speed of light was constant at 186,000 per second. Within the last few years of scientific discoveries or theorys, it is now believed to NOT be constant AND is not the speed as to which it was previously determined. This could now account for shorter/longer days as our light comes from the sun. This might be in microseconds but never the less would be a CHANGE in the still used 24 hour day. As I stated earlier, I do not believe God intended the findings of science to be a work of satan. It is our concept of their findings that is subject to the will of satan.

Do you believe that many animals(know as prehistoric), existed in the distant past? I watched them dig up fossils of many different species that appear to be from an ancient age in time. I believe that all, both humans and animals, were created by God just as we see their bones today. Each as a distinct creature or person. So I am still torn between what I have actually seen as being very old and the 24 hour 6 day creation. I actually agree with the six days but there seems to have been SOMETHING going on by God PRIOR to this as indicated in the first two verses at the beginning of the Bible and thus why I wanted this discussion.

Iraq says that the disaster of the Colombia space ship was done by God. I think not as it was God who gave us the ability to do it to start with. Note that this is a field of science. So do we disregard all of science and their findings as satanic?

God Bless..............Alex

[ February 01, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alex:
If it is so cut and dried as to 24 hour days, then why is this one of the most debatable subjects? Again, I have been on one side or the other for years but tend to believe in the 24 hour day. My problem is that I can't prove it.

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 will have to admit that my limited time for Adam and Eve was wrong. But as one posted, there seems to be a an unknown lenght of time for the first few days of Adam and Eve's life.

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 ]

 

[Alex]

Pastor Larry:

Thanks for the comments! I had never thought about what you said about them having no babies. This would indeed back up a limited time as I had first thought. I have wondered over the years why they didn't have children as both were created as we are now, meaning, that they could have and it also seems logical that they would have(before the sin) 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.

Very good point...thanks!

God Bless...............Alex

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
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.

I believe you did miss my point. I was using a thousand years to fit the long term theories and in effect saying they were wrong because of them NOT having children while in Eden and thus back to a 24 hour 6 day time frame with evidently little time in Eden. How long I do not know, but it seems not enough time to have any children until after their sins.

God Bless...........Alex