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

[Plain Old Bill]

Grasshopper is what you are proposing theistic evolution? Then I would advise you to read two books, the first is " The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel and the second book is "The Evolution Handbook" by Vance Ferrell. My point would be after reading these two books you would have too many questions to trust any kind of evolution, There are just to many gaping holes , to many questions evolution leaves unanswered, to many exceptions to scientific rules, to many happy accidents.
You would never accept it if someone told you a watch or a car, airplane, or building just evolved and had no designer, no assembler or maker. You would never accept it if I told you something just popped out of thin air. You would think it preposterous if someone told you an assembled bycycle just dropped out of the sky or that the bicycle evolved into a motorcycle.

I cannot accept macro evolution because the is NO evidence. If evolution is true then why aren't monkeys or apes still evolving into man? After 150 we have not found 1 missing link . We have invented 2 sciences (anthropology & paleontology) just to validate evolution and they come up with no hard evidence. Biologists also come up with no hard evidence yet they are among the most ardent of the evolutionists. All of these thousands of highly schooled "scientists" have been given over 100 years to make a solid case and are found sadly lacking. They have been paid billions of dollars, when are they going to start earning their paychecks with hard evidence. Plus when one of their facts are proven wrong they change their stories time and time again. To go along with them simply requires more faith then I have. But I can muster up enough faith to believe the Biblical account. The Bible is right about to many other things for me to disbelieve the creation and the flood accounts recorded in it.

 

[saturneptune]

The posts in this thread show how finite our minds our and how limited our thinking. What is the major disagreement about? Time? Billions of years vs days? A logical question would be, how do you even know time existed at that point in creation? Every thought expressed here assumes time had been created.

 

[Revmitchell]

The posts in this thread show how finite our minds our and how limited our thinking. What is the major disagreement about? Time? Billions of years vs days? A logical question would be, how do you even know time existed at that point in creation? Every thought expressed here assumes time had been created.

Because creation is expressed in literal 24 hour days.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm not being smug to believe the creation account is God's word and is true. The Bible is not a record of man's view of God but rather God's revelation to man.

I'm sorry, but the style is not the same in the pagan accounts as the bible. It's very different. Also, what they write about is so clearly mythical. God's account is so very down to earth (pun intended), spare, and simple, compared to the dramatic pagan tales. The Enuma Elish is vague, too generalized and poorly told. It's terrible, in fact, from a literary viewpoint, whereas Gen. 1 is a masterpiece. God says so much in so few words.

I wasn't trying to be insulting with the smug statement. Also its obvious they are the same type of literature. Of course the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis are mythology. And they are told by a different person and they are a bit flambioant (not unlike psalms or Lamentations or the Song of Solomon) but they have the same themes which is the point. Of course they aren't telling about God beause the Summerians don't believe in God and that is the point of Genesis. God apart from other Gods. Both works are writen by people of the same cultural background because Abraham came from Ur (Uru - city most likely from the summerian kingdom; there is also thought from southern Turkey). Strange that they have the same themes. You would argue that they are talking about the same event but maybe the same event in different perspecitves? So then God could have created it just as it is related in Genesis and the pegans re-wrote it or the commonly held myth of the day was reviewed with a new look under the soverignty of God. I personally can argue it either way. Since you're taking the Genesis account literally. I will take the other side. Your argument seems to rely on the fact that God himself is writing it but as you know he didn't put pen to paper he inspired other people and used what they know to allow them to write which God uses to glorify himself and get across his meanings. In a day when other gods are the norm of most people's beliefs God establishes his Godship over all other belief systems even over the Creation myth since it was his creation. He outlines what he did in three fold method using a technique familiar in the ancient world days 1,2,3 general format, 4,5,6 more specific. 7 concluding number also number of completenesss you note that Enuma Elish also uses another number for fulness with is 40 days ie 40 day and 40 nights. Recuring theme in the bible.

 

[saturneptune]

Because creation is expressed in literal 24 hour days.

Yes, the term day is used in Genesis quite a bit. Where do you get the 24 hr day?

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, the term day is used in Genesis quite a bit. Where do you get the 24 hr day?

Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31

 

[ajg1959]

Yes, the term day is used in Genesis quite a bit. Where do you get the 24 hr day?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here, God says He created the Earth in 6 days, and rested on the seventh day, and that we are to follow that same pattern. If the six days were million of years old, then how could we do that? We'd never live till daylight of the first day.

It is clear from this passage that days are indeed 24 hours long.

AJ

 

[HankD]

Where does the Bible teach 24 hour days? Especially if you insist on literalism. Do not literal mornings and literal evenings require a literal sun? Yet the sun wasn't created till the 4th day.

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.​

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:​

OK so there are 12 hours in a day and 12 in a night. That equals 24.​

As to a 24 hour day-night without the sun:​

I believe God knew how long 24 hours would be before He created the sun.​

Believe what you want. Like I said, I don't begrudge you that and I don't say that your faith is any lesser or greater than mine or anyone else's.​

And yes the Bible does use the Hebrew word yom in a generic sense even as soon as Genesis 2​

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.​

But because the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses cardinal/ordinal numbers (first day, second day, third day... etc) I believe these are "solar" or "sidereal" days - 23 hours, 56 Minutes, 1.4 seconds".​

Genesis 1:14 shows that God used the solar orbital relationship of the sun and the earth to give us humans the ability to measure 24 hours of which He already knew the length without said sun.​

In addition the solar day model of Genesis 1 is supported and used several times in other portions of the Bible.

e.g. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


In my youth, I have taken Modern Physics (and other sciences at the graduate level).

I choose to exercise faith over the ever-changing theories of science.

I also realize that yours is a faith choice as well because it is a choice for "creation" versus mindless, chance happenings of evolutionary origins,
just different than mine.

And granted, it is within the realm of possibility that Genesis 1 could be an allegory, however because of the reasons given above, I do not believe yom is allegorical in Genesis 1 but literal.


HankD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.​

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:​

OK so there are 12 hours in a day and 12 in a night. That equals 24.​

As to a 24 hour day-night without the sun:​

I believe God knew how long 24 hours would be before He created the sun.​

Believe what you want. Like I said, I don't begrudge you that and I don't say that your faith is any lesser or greater than mine or anyone else's.​

And yes the Bible does use the Hebrew word yom in a generic sense even as soon as Genesis 2​

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.​

But because the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses cardinal/ordinal numbers (first day, second day, third day... etc) I believe these are "solar" or "sidereal" days - 23 hours, 56 Minutes, 1.4 seconds".​

Genesis 1:14 shows that God used the solar orbital relationship of the sun and the earth to give us humans the ability to measure 24 hours of which He already knew the length without said sun.​

In addition the solar day model of Genesis 1 is supported and used several times in other portions of the Bible.

e.g. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


In my youth, I have taken Modern Physics (and other sciences at the graduate level).

I choose to exercise faith over the ever-changing theories of science.

I also realize that yours is a faith choice as well because it is a choice for "creation" versus mindless, chance happenings of evolutionary origins,
just different than mine.

And granted, it is within the realm of possibility that Genesis 1 could be an allegory, however because of the reasons given above, I do not believe yom is allegorical in Genesis 1 but literal.


HankD

Just a note. All stories are told as fact. So I'm I'm telling a story I will tell it as though it were fact. Such as there were 10 people who went down to the river and caught a large fish. In fact the fish was so large that all 10 people had to carry it. The fact is the 10 people didn't exist. its a story. So if you critically look at what I've stated you will say that I meant 10 people though I chose it because it was a large number of people I could have just as easily chosen 100 if I wanted my story to be even more Fantastic. So since I really meant a large number of people you wouldn't be able to tell that from the text. Reading from the text you would think I meant exactly 10 people rather than a large amount.

 

[saturneptune]

If the six days were million of years old, then how could we do that? We'd never live till daylight of the first day.

It is clear from this passage that days are indeed 24 hours long.

AJ

We would get lots of overtime.

I must say, between you, RevM, and Hank, the case for a 24 hour day is pretty compelling.

 

[ajg1959]

Just a note. All stories are told as fact. So I'm I'm telling a story I will tell it as though it were fact. Such as there were 10 people who went down to the river and caught a large fish. In fact the fish was so large that all 10 people had to carry it. The fact is the 10 people didn't exist. its a story. So if you critically look at what I've stated you will say that I meant 10 people though I chose it because it was a large number of people I could have just as easily chosen 100 if I wanted my story to be even more Fantastic. So since I really meant a large number of people you wouldn't be able to tell that from the text. Reading from the text you would think I meant exactly 10 people rather than a large amount.

Tell me, how do we decide what is literal, and what is just a made up story in the Bible?

There are instances when Jesus said things such as "The Kingdom of God is like such and such". When He said "is like" , it meant the story was a parable, and not literal. (although the message or the lesson of the story is to be taken literal)

But Gen doesnt say "is like"...it just says "God created".

My point is this, if dont take the story of creation as literal, then what is is just a tale? Jonah and the whale? The flood? Parting of the Red Sea?

How bout this one...the Deity of Jesus?

AJ

 

[Marcia]

I wasn't trying to be insulting with the smug statement. Also its obvious they are the same type of literature. Of course the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis are mythology. And they are told by a different person and they are a bit flambioant (not unlike psalms or Lamentations or the Song of Solomon) but they have the same themes which is the point. Of course they aren't telling about God beause the Summerians don't believe in God and that is the point of Genesis. God apart from other Gods. Both works are writen by people of the same cultural background because Abraham came from Ur (Uru - city most likely from the summerian kingdom; there is also thought from southern Turkey). Strange that they have the same themes. .

Yes, they have the same themes but that is not the same as having the same literary styles.

You would argue that they are talking about the same event but maybe the same event in different perspecitves?

Yes, creation from very different perspectives.

So then God could have created it just as it is related in Genesis and the pegans re-wrote it or the commonly held myth of the day was reviewed with a new look under the soverignty of God.

I think the pagans wrote it based on the beliefs in their gods. Perhaps they had some of the information in some way - we don't know how - and/or they perceived the universe and believed it to be created by superior being(s). I am not sure exactly what you mean by "under the sovereignty of God," here, but I do not think the pagans wrote their mythical story under any guidance from God nor with any thought of Him.

I personally can argue it either way. Since you're taking the Genesis account literally. I will take the other side. Your argument seems to rely on the fact that God himself is writing it but as you know he didn't put pen to paper he inspired other people and used what they know to allow them to write which God uses to glorify himself and get across his meanings.

God inspired Moses to write Genesis; he did not inspire other creation accounts.

In a day when other gods are the norm of most people's beliefs God establishes his Godship over all other belief systems even over the Creation myth since it was his creation. He outlines what he did in three fold method using a technique familiar in the ancient world days 1,2,3 general format, 4,5,6 more specific. 7 concluding number also number of completenesss you note that Enuma Elish also uses another number for fulness with is 40 days ie 40 day and 40 nights. Recuring theme in the bible

Any parallels in Enuma Elish with Genesis are simply evidence that all people at one time knew the true God, but rejected Him eventually and turned to other gods. Indeed, this is what God tells us happened (he tells us this in the OT and in the NT - see Rom. 1:18ff).

So parts of the true story got mixed in with the mythical accounts, but God did not inspire the mythical accounts, nor did Genesis come from the mythical accounts.

 

[Marcia]

The posts in this thread show how finite our minds our and how limited our thinking. What is the major disagreement about? Time? Billions of years vs days? A logical question would be, how do you even know time existed at that point in creation? Every thought expressed here assumes time had been created.

Yes, time was created by God and is expressed in Gen. 1.

If billions of years passed instead of days, there would have had to have been death before sin (I said this in a previous post).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tell me, how do we decide what is literal, and what is just a made up story in the Bible?

There are instances when Jesus said things such as "The Kingdom of God is like such and such". When He said "is like" , it meant the story was a parable, and not literal. (although the message or the lesson of the story is to be taken literal)

But Gen doesnt say "is like"...it just says "God created".

My point is this, if dont take the story of creation as literal, then what is is just a tale? Jonah and the whale? The flood? Parting of the Red Sea?

How bout this one...the Diety of Jesus?

AJ

The argument is this: what type of literature is Genesis? The bible is made up of different types of literature. Some of it historical, and some of it is poetic, and some is prophetic. So a comparison to the literature of the day we get similar accounts of creation (not exactly the same) from different people groups does genesis fit into this catagory? Well, tradition states that Genesis and the whole of the Torah was writen by Moses. Moses lived thousands of years after the perported creation of the world. He lived hundreds of years after Abraham. In fact Moses was educated by the best teachers of Egypt and since the preisthood of Karnak was the educated class he probably tutored under them. Believe me that the consept of Seraphim guarding the seat of God is closely related to the minor diety that guarded Pharoh's seat (goddess Seraph) was not lost on me. The fact that the goddess Seraph was pictured as a disk with wings extended over the throne is reminisent of the Seraphim interlocking wings over the ark. So where did Moses get his consept of genesis with which to record? Directly from God? Possibly I do not have a problem with creation in 6 days I just want to make an argument for the opposing side. Most likely oral tradition passed on. But how? Well, sure the Hebrews could have passed on all these stories verbally. And some of the Hebrews were his scribes. Ok. However, the Shepered kings were of the same culture people types as the hebrews and many of the summerian mythology was probably passed on to the priest at karnak. Moses may have picked up some from there. He also spent a lot of Time with Jethro who directed Moses' learning to Jehovah specifically since the also was a priest. So it seems that Genesis could be a rough collection of summerian stories emphasised by subordinating all to Jehovah rather than multiple Gods.

 

[ajg1959]

The argument is this: what type of literature is Genesis? The bible is made up of different types of literature. Some of it historical, and some of it is poetic, and some is prophetic. So a comparison to the literature of the day we get similar accounts of creation (not exactly the same) from different people groups does genesis fit into this catagory? Well, tradition states that Genesis and the whole of the Torah was writen by Moses. Moses lived thousands of years after the perported creation of the world. He lived hundreds of years after Abraham. In fact Moses was educated by the best teachers of Egypt and since the preisthood of Karnak was the educated class he probably tutored under them. Believe me that the consept of Seraphim guarding the seat of God is closely related to the minor diety that guarded Pharoh's seat (goddess Seraph) was not lost on me. The fact that the goddess Seraph was pictured as a disk with wings extended over the throne is reminisent of the Seraphim interlocking wings over the ark. So where did Moses get his consept of genesis with which to record? Directly from God? Possibly I do not have a problem with creation in 6 days I just want to make an argument for the opposing side. Most likely oral tradition passed on. But how? Well, sure the Hebrews could have passed on all these stories verbally. And some of the Hebrews were his scribes. Ok. However, the Shepered kings were of the same culture people types as the hebrews and many of the summerian mythology was probably passed on to the priest at karnak. Moses may have picked up some from there. He also spent a lot of Time with Jethro who directed Moses' learning to Jehovah specifically since the also was a priest. So it seems that Genesis could be a rough collection of summerian stories emphasised by subordinating all to Jehovah rather than multiple Gods.

I do understand your point, and in a literary or philisophical sense, it may be valid.

But from a spiritual sense, in my relationship with God, I have to believe every word of the Bible as it is written, because if I express doubt about any one part of it, I in effect bring doubt on all of it.

Also, if I let doubt enter into my faith, and my relationship with God, I open myself up to every New Age doctrine floating around out there that questions the validity of the Bible.

I have to stick to believing all of it.

AJ

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, they have the same themes but that is not the same as having the same literary styles.



Yes, creation from very different perspectives.



I think the pagans wrote it based on the beliefs in their gods. Perhaps they had some of the information in some way - we don't know how - and/or they perceived the universe and believed it to be created by superior being(s). I am not sure exactly what you mean by "under the sovereignty of God," here, but I do not think the pagans wrote their mythical story under any guidance from God nor with any thought of Him.




God inspired Moses to write Genesis; he did not inspire other creation accounts.




Any parallels in Enuma Elish with Genesis are simply evidence that all people at one time knew the true God, but rejected Him eventually and turned to other gods. Indeed, this is what God tells us happened (he tells us this in the OT and in the NT - see Rom. 1:18ff).

So parts of the true story got mixed in with the mythical accounts, but God did not inspire the mythical accounts, nor did Genesis come from the mythical accounts.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying God inspired the pagan version of the myths. I'm saying there is two ways of looking at Genesis in comparison to the literary types of the day. Since there are many correlations.

1) your theory that there is a base truth which is the genesis account
2) both are using the same myth base but in genesis its evidencing God as supreme over all the gods with regard to creation.

In the second senario, what a person will say is that God inspires people to write. But people write what they know and God meets people where they are at in their understanding not in Gods. This is why you never see DNA mentioned in the bible. People didn't know of DNA then. However, if God were to write the bible today he would use it. The first senario is based on an understanding that God through the Holy Spirit dictated what he wanted to be said by the human instrument he inspired.

Thats what I was trying to say.

 

[Marcia]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying God inspired the pagan version of the myths. I'm saying there is two ways of looking at Genesis in comparison to the literary types of the day. Since there are many correlations.

1) your theory that there is a base truth which is the genesis account
2) both are using the same myth base but in genesis its evidencing God as supreme over all the gods with regard to creation.

In the second senario, what a person will say is that God inspires people to write. But people write what they know and God meets people where they are at in their understanding not in Gods. This is why you never see DNA mentioned in the bible. People didn't know of DNA then. However, if God were to write the bible today he would use it. The first senario is based on an understanding that God through the Holy Spirit dictated what he wanted to be said by the human instrument he inspired.

Thats what I was trying to say.

I think the distinction is that the Genesis account is literally true - true for the people then and true for us today. It is written as a literal account and should be taken that way. I do not think God would tell people that He created the world in 6 days if that were not true just because they did not know about evolution. That would be deceptive.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do understand your point, and in a literary or philisophical sense, it may be valid.

But from a spiritual sense, in my relationship with God, I have to believe every word of the Bible as it is written, because if I express doubt about any one part of it, I in effect bring doubt on all of it.

Also, if I let doubt enter into my faith, and my relationship with God, I open myself up to every New Age doctrine floating around out there that questions the validity of the Bible.

I have to stick to believing all of it.

AJ

I understand what you mean. I don't disbelieve the bible. The fact is I like to look at all these things but it will never change my relationship with Jesus. The fact is the bible is the truth. Jesus is God. He has redeemed me and I look foreward to the resurection. When I consider whether God made the world in 6 days or if he meant it metaphorically I will say he did it he created the world just as he said. I may not understand the context perfectly but I will say thats the way he did it because there are no other gods beside God. But because I bring up these questions doesn't mean that the bible is not true. Just means I'm curious. If scientist definitively find that the world has been around for millions of years I will not think genesis is not true. He still did it that way even if it means in outline form. Doesn't change God. If scientist find out for a young earth it just means that the same God is soverign and can do all things. Thats why its easy for me to pick up both arguments. doesn't affect my faith at all.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think the distinction is that the Genesis account is literally true - true for the people then and true for us today. It is written as a literal account and should be taken that way. I do not think God would tell people that He created the world in 6 days if that were not true just because they did not know about evolution. That would be deceptive.

I don't think thats deceptive because he showed the outline of how he did it. For instance my 5 year old wants to know how babies are made. Now I'm not going to go into the discriptive details of how it works but keep it simple for him. I told him that dad gives mom a seed and God helps mom to add to that seed something of herself. Then God helps mom to grow the seed into a baby in her womb. Now none of that is false. Its all true. But because I don't describe sex, or chromizone or fetal growth doesn't mean I'm lying.

 

[ajg1959]

I understand what you mean. I don't disbelieve the bible. The fact is I like to look at all these things but it will never change my relationship with Jesus. The fact is the bible is the truth. Jesus is God. He has redeemed me and I look foreward to the resurection. When I consider whether God made the world in 6 days or if he meant it metaphorically I will say he did it he created the world just as he said. I may not understand the context perfectly but I will say thats the way he did it because there are no other gods beside God. But because I bring up these questions doesn't mean that the bible is not true. Just means I'm curious. If scientist definitively find that the world has been around for millions of years I will not think genesis is not true. He still did it that way even if it means in outline form. Doesn't change God. If scientist find out for a young earth it just means that the same God is soverign and can do all things. Thats why its easy for me to pick up both arguments. doesn't affect my faith at all.

There is one argument that does puzzle me though. One version of the gap theory doesnt deny the 6 literal days of creation. The proponents of this version claim that the earth is really millions of years old, and that Lucifer was the ruler of it, and that God destroyed it and "rebuilt" it during the 6 days. They claim that "created' could also mean "restored".

Now, here is where I draw the line. If this theory is just an ungodly attempt to bring science and the Bible into harmony, then it is useless to spend any time worrying about it.

But, if we find out in heaven, that this theory is correct, God still gave me the information I needed as it pertains to my earth, and again, it is useless to worry about it. In my opinion, the gap theory would not make our account of creation a lie, it would merely mean that what we were given was all we needed to know.

I choose to believe it as it is written, and not to worry about anything beyond what God me to read.

AJ