Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

[Marcia]

Bottom line: the assumption of the inerrancy of Scripture precludes any acceptance of alternative theories. If one does not assume inerrancy, then other options exist for discussion.

Are you saying you reject the inerrancy of scripture?

 

[Marcia]

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. Ex 20:11

I do not believe the Lord said this in order to fool people. He knew they would believe this was 6 literal days, just as He says in Genesis 1.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet, I and most scholars think this is unlikely. They viewed it as a myth because we are viewing the document from the larger cultural perspective. I suggest that the Genesis creation account can be looked at in a similar manner. From the larger context of the peoples it speaks of.
Kind of like most people read the NT account of the woman who was bleeding as having touched the hem of Jesus garment when the context of his time it would have been Jesus' tassle. Four of which he was required by law to wear.

κράσπεδον

kraspedon

kras'-ped-on

Of uncertain derivation; a margin, that is, (specifically) a fringe or tassel: - border, hem.
________________________________________________

Anyway, What makes it literal is the intent of the author which is God. Not the people of "the time". Some rather wild gymnastics you are engaging in here.

 

[Allan]

Are you saying you reject the inerrancy of scripture?

Apparently this is exactly what he is saying, because there is no other way to take his statement.

 

[Steven2006]

I have no problem embracing a literal six day 24hr days. It stands to reason that when God created everything it would appear older anyway. Did Adam appear to be a man of say thirty, or just days old? I would assume if one would have been there to cut down a tree it would have been created complete and had rings in them even if they were only days old. I would assume everything would have appeared perfectly as the age God intended them to appear. God didn't just only make seeds and let everything grow in it's own time he created them with an appropriate age, just like Adam.

That said I have always left one door open that the earth could be older. Not man, nor animal mind you but the earth, and this is the verse that gives me that pause.

Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

It is clear that on the fourth day God gave us the signs in order to keep our calendars, days and years. So it is crystal clear that there have been 24hr days from that point on. However it is not as clear before that. We know that time to God is not the same as time to us, so how do we really know how long those first few days were in our time when God hadn't yet created our way of keeping them?

I'll try and repost this one more time, because I am curious if anyone else thinks this as an option or if not why not?

 

[Allan]

Bottom line: the assumption of the inerrancy of Scripture precludes any acceptance of alternative theories. If one does not assume inerrancy, then other options exist for discussion.

I disagree.

Bottom line: Yes, the fact of the inerrancy of Scripture precludes any acceptance of 'alternative' theories. Only if one denies inerrancy do other theories exist for discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

The whole time is not the same to God as it is to us thing is way over blown. While God sees all the way down eternity the 24 hour day was created by God. It is not a man made occurrence. And we have no need to separate that from God's view. I see no logical or scriptural reason to see anything other than a 24 hour day prior to v. 14.

 

[saturneptune]

I'll try and repost this one more time, because I am curious if anyone else thinks this as an option or if not why not?

With my finite human mind, all I can do is take the creation account in Genesis literally, so I agree with Rev Mitchell, that they were six 24 hour periods.

Having said that, if I am wrong, and Genesis is written in a way to describe some other time period or time not existing that we really cannot understand because of our finite minds, well, guess I missed that one.

What bothers me about this thread is that some seem to get Bibical opinion and absolute truth mixed up, and add the element of equating Biblical inerency with their opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You don't believe that Gen 1 was a revelation of God to Moses in the sense that Moses wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I ask because what you say here makes it sound as though you think Moses just wrote it himself out of his own mind and purposes.

I believe Moses was inspired but I don't think he was dictated to apart from the law. Which God wrote himself. When the Holy Spirit inspires you or myself he uses our faculties and abilities. Do you honestly believe that David was thinking of the crusifixtion when he wrote psalm 22? Or do you think we was expressing his experience? I believe the latter and God used that and inspired David to say it that way to prophesy about Jesus. See the difference?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The concepts of Genesis were NOT derived from Enuma Elish nor Atra Hasis. THEY were derived from the account of creation already known. They shadows of the truth that have been retold to suit mans ideas.

Narnia is a fictional book created with the intent to tell an untrue and unreal story.
Scripture can in no way, shape, or form be said to be the same thing.

Moses DID know how the world was formed because God told him about it and made sure via His Spirit it was written down exactly as He stated it. Moses was not making it up as He went along, pulling from Pagan views (as you suppose) to come up with 'his' best guess. It is the accurate and true account from God Himself, was not only there at the time but also the very one who did it. Just as God proved Himself to be the Only True and Living God against the Egytian gods by reveal Himself through plagues that attacked their very deity and power, so God did with the Creation event to dispel the myths about how the world was created and what had transpired up till their present time. No, it is no fictional narritive as you suppose but is 100% real and true.

You are grasping (gasping ) air in this argument.

I'm not saying its not true. But I don't believe it's a scientific text of how the world was made either. I said God created the world in the way he mentioned in Genesis but not necissarily to be taken in the literal like you would a science book. God inspired Moses with what Moses knew and established his supremacy over all the Gods.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Bottom line: the assumption of the inerrancy of Scripture precludes any acceptance of alternative theories. If one does not assume inerrancy, then other options exist for discussion.

I think you're confusing what you mean by inerrancy. I'm more in line with what saturnneptune is saying here:

Having said that, if I am wrong, and Genesis is written in a way to describe some other time period or time not existing that we really cannot understand because of our finite minds, well, guess I missed that one.

What bothers me about this thread is that some seem to get Bibical opinion and absolute truth mixed up, and add the element of equating Biblical inerency with their opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not believe the Lord said this in order to fool people. He knew they would believe this was 6 literal days, just as He says in Genesis 1.

But you would believe dinosaur bones were? Like I said its still true rather meant literally or by organization. I arguing the later. Kind of like my discussion about telling my young kids the truth about sex without going into the gory details. True but not necissarily in the way you're thinking.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

κράσπεδον

kraspedon

kras'-ped-on

Of uncertain derivation; a margin, that is, (specifically) a fringe or tassel: - border, hem.
________________________________________________

Anyway, What makes it literal is the intent of the author which is God. Not the people of "the time". Some rather wild gymnastics you are engaging in here.

Yes tassle different connotation from hem. But definition highly reliant on cultural norms of the day.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes tassle different connotation from hem. But definition highly reliant on cultural norms of the day.

There is no difference in between tassel and hem in the passage you are speaking of. I pulled that directly from that passage.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no difference in between tassel and hem in the passage you are speaking of. I pulled that directly from that passage.

Which is my point. The passage it comes from can mean tassle or Hem. However, our english bibles translate hem which for us has a different connotation from tassel. So understanding the culture from which Jesus came it may be better understood that the woman touched his tassel and is reliant on understanding Jesus' culture 2,000 + years ago. And this is what I'm attempting to say with regard to the creation story.

 

[annsni]

I believe Moses was inspired but I don't think he was dictated to apart from the law. Which God wrote himself. When the Holy Spirit inspires you or myself he uses our faculties and abilities. Do you honestly believe that David was thinking of the crusifixtion when he wrote psalm 22? Or do you think we was expressing his experience? I believe the latter and God used that and inspired David to say it that way to prophesy about Jesus. See the difference?

So God let Moses put something that was not true or historical fact into our Scriptures that are "inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16)? That any of the writers who wrote the different books of the Scriptures ever wrote anything that was false but wrote it as fact? Wow.

 

[annsni]

But you would believe dinosaur bones were? Like I said its still true rather meant literally or by organization. I arguing the later. Kind of like my discussion about telling my young kids the truth about sex without going into the gory details. True but not necissarily in the way you're thinking.

Dinosaur bones were made to fool people? I don't know of anyone who said that. I believe the bones were created to hold up some pretty large and pretty small creatures. But I could be wrong. :laugh:

 

[StefanM]

Apparently this is exactly what he is saying, because there is no other way to take his statement.

Pretty much.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So God let Moses put something that was not true or historical fact into our Scriptures that are "inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16)? That any of the writers who wrote the different books of the Scriptures ever wrote anything that was false but wrote it as fact? Wow.

I never said it wasn't true. Just not in the way you think it to be true. I believe God outlined his creation. I don't think he made a scientific document to be analyzed critically for detail.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Pretty much.

First I don't by into that because Innerrancy doesn't mean Impeccable. Which seems to be where you're arguing from. Just a simple look at transcription errors tell you the text we have now are not impecable. What the bible says is true. I haven't denied that. What I have discussed is your approach to determining how it is true with regard to creation.