In the Beginning....

[Steadfast Fred]

The evolutionist still does not have any accurate dating method. There is no way he can take into account all factors. Like Peter says:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3-4)

The evolutionist, out of necessity, argues for uniformitarianism. The Bible says that uniformitarianism is not true, but false--that all things have not continued as they were from the beginning of the creation. Calculations cannot be made on the theory that a process is in a constant state of decay at exactly the same rate over thousands of years without any change in the rate of decay, without anything to stop or interfere with the rate of decay, etc. The scientist can only conjecture about the past, he cannot examine the past. The evolutionist does not take into consideration events like the flood which would have vastly altered his deductions concerning the age of fossils.

He can't take into consideration the very fact that God creates with an appearance of age. Adam looked more like a 30 year old man when he was one day old, rather than an one day old infant. There was an appearance of age in everything he created. He created the stars and the light from the stars at the same time. Even those astronomical deductions will be off.

Very good post!

He also can't take into account that Scripture clearly says the earth and everything in it was created within a six day time frame... not over millions of years.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

 

[BobRyan]

The earth did not exist prior to the first day of creation. It was created on the first day of creation.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy SIX days you shall labor ... 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.

'All that in them is' leaves nothing out whatsoever. Even the dirt was created within the six day period (the first day). One cannot say 'such and such existed prior to the six day creation period,' because Scripture declares everything that is in the earth, everything that is in the sea, and everything that is in heaven was created within those six days of creation. There is nothing older than dirt except God, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost.

That is certainly possible - however the text does not start with "And God said let there be earth - formless and void with water covering the surface of the deep - and let there be light -- and evening and morniing were the first day". So it leaves a small door open for the idea that at some point prior to day 1 -- when God said "Let there be light", God said "let there be earth - formless and void with water covering the surface of the deep".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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


I believe this scripture confirms that the creation was indeed 6 24 hours days.

I agree - the fourth commandment points directly back to Creation week and hard wires the 7 day week at creation to the 7 day week at Sinai.

8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but [/COLOR]the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" 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.


Impossible to miss the hard-wired link between the 7 day week at Sinai and the 7 day week in Gen 1:2-2:3. God is creator and that is foundational to all of scripture.

In John 1 it is foundational to the Gospel itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Very good post!

He also can't take into account that Scripture clearly says the earth and everything in it was created within a six day time frame... not over millions of years.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Indeed - and as Is 66 points out "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to Worship"

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for mankind"

And in Rev 14:7-7 The everlasting Gospel (vs 6) refers back to this 7 day week fact "worship Him who created the Heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water".

Remembering and admitting to the The literal 7 day creation week is something that honors God specifically as Creator. Jesus is not only Savior but He is Creator God!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then the Bible would contradict itself, which it doesn't.
Even as an unsaved person I never read it that way. I never even considered that possibility. It is an unnatural reading. It seems to get whatever meaning you want, you have to go to the higher critics first, study them, and then come back and say, "Oh yeah, I see what those unbelievers are trying to say." As an unbeliever I would never have thought of those ideas. And I certainly don't now.

This is where the issue is for me. I agree scripture doesn't contradict itself yet here we have a clear disruption of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 if and only if you've taken scripture as you have. Which leads me to believe the genesis 1 account isn't to be taken as you have taken which means the type of literary style, the context of the period in which it was writen, The culture in which it was written we come up with a differing approach to what the author meant. It is clear in Genesis 2 that when man was made "no shrub" and "no plant" had yet appeared. So what are we to make of it. Well further fromt he Westminster theological journal we have a good approach

This question has
intrigued and perplexed me for some time. Is the absence of rain mere
geographical decoration or quasi-irrelevant data that sets the stage for the
really important material that follows? Or is this information that is founda-
tional to the narrative and its theology?...Verses 5-7 articu-
late a two-fold problem, reason for the problem, and solution to the problem.5
Verse 5a articulates the problem: "No siah-hassadeh had yet appeared in
the land, and no ‘eseb-hassadeh yet sprung up."...Claus Westermann, on the
other hand, has provided some specificity:
siah describes mainly but not exclusively shrubs or the wild shrubs of the steppe
(Gen 21:15; Job 30:4, 7), and ‘eseb-hassadeh plants that serve for food or
domestic plantsBut even greater specificity is attainable. The phrase, siah-hassadeh, refers to
the wild vegetation that grows spontaneously after the onset of the rainy
season, and ‘eseb-hassadeh refers to cultivated grains...Verse 5b articulates the two-fold reason for the problem with impeccable
logic: "because the Lord God had not sent rain on the land, and there was
no man to cultivate the ground." There was no vegetation that springs up
spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was
no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator. So that the reader will not
miss the two-fold reason corresponding to the two-fold problem, the Hebrew
text focuses the reader's attention on the two-fold reason, the absence of rain
and the absence of anyone to cultivate the fields, by placing himtir ("sent rain")
and 'adam ("man") in the clause-initial position in their respective clauses.
A coherent picture is emerging: there was no wild vegetation because there
was no rain, and there was no cultivated grain because there was no cultivator Verses 6-7 provide the two-fold solution: "So [God] caused rain clouds
to rise up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, and
the Lord God formed the man. . . ." Verse 7 says, "the LORD God formed
the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and the man became a living being." Here lies the solution
to the second prong of the two-fold problem and reason. The logic is cogent
and the picture is coherent: "no cultivated grain had sprung up ... for
there was no one to cultivate the land ... and the LORD God formed the
man." This is all rather straight forward and uncontested.

Which doesn't contradict the narration in Genesis 1 when you view the literary type and organization of this type of literature. Remember Genesis 1 has a refrain with each day and is similar to Psalms in this respect.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You conveniently ignore the fact that this text can be easily interpreted within the framework of primary reproduction rather than initial creation. Also that it can be interpreted within the framework of farming rather than creation. To interpret it as initial creation is to repudiate day three where God says "and it was so" and that God "saw" it was good.

May I ask if have you any good reasons to reject either the account of day three or Genesis 2:5-7 as inclusive within the inspired original? Are there any extent copies that omit either?

Note the Text itself "No Shrub" "no plant" had yet appeared. Unless you attest that all created plant life were in seed form on the six day of Creation in which case the language of the third day is in error.

I take the 6 days of creation account as an organizational method of explaining creation using 6 days to organize it set it up for an explination of the 7th holy day with out being literally 6 days. The six days are refrain like to provide for a better memory and to repudiate any other creation story account of the gods within that cultural context. The story is structured to disrupt accepted Ideas of the gods creation account of Egypt and Summeria but subjecting each aspect of nature under God's authority. It is orgainzed by days to set a framework for a week specifically establishing a base where with the Sabbath is added and made holy. The days are organizational method to show three fold step of creation of days 1-3 with more detailed explination set up in the following 3 day period 4-6 and leaving the 7th day as Holy. Which interestingly enough with the establishment of Jesus kingdom and the redemption of man and the world the 7th day becomes part of the 3 days "of Christ death and ressurrection". Days 1-3 creation in general terms Days 4-6 creation in specific terms day 7 is holy and becomes inclusive of, (or Good Friday to Ressurrection sunday) 3 days creation is redeemed.
The latter part regarding the 7th day admittedly is my speculation but the prior part is an established theory.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wow....TS.....I AM IMPRESSED!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Note the Text itself "No Shrub" "no plant" had yet appeared. Unless you attest that all created plant life were in seed form on the six day of Creation in which case the language of the third day is in error.

I agree with your Westminister quotation:

There was no vegetation that springs up
spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator.

He is not talking about CREATED full mature vegetation but REPRODUCED vegetation "spontanesouly as a result of the rains" and he is talking about CULTIVATED grains due to human intervention.

If you deny there was full mature CREATED vegetation then you deny any available FOOD source for Adam and Eve for MONTHS.

The Biblical analogy provided in the days of creation are as follows in keeping with inspired commentary on the first day:

1. Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 interprets day one with the origin of the light of life in revelation of God to the elect in the face of Jesus Christ - Let there be light is life and knoweldge - regeneration.

2. Day two is all about SEPARATION or a biblical analogy of Sanctification that follows regeneration.

3. Day three is about MANFEST LIFE or fruits of sanctification - Let the earth bring forth.... or the fruit of the Spirit

4. Day four is about MANIFEST LIGHTS - witnesses (The moon = Christ's Congregation in a dark world - Stars the sons of God in a dark world. Sun the Son of God as the Light of the World.

5. Day five and Six is about LIFE AFTER ITS KIND which is the natural product of "WITNESSES"in the previous day.

6. Day six is about CONFORMATION TO THE IMAGE OF GOD - final glorification of man, resurrection from the dust of the earth and conformation to the Image of God in glorification.

7. Day Seven is about a world that has been rid of sin so that God can look upon a whole creation and say "it is very good."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree with your Westminister quotation:

There was no vegetation that springs up
spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator.

He is not talking about CREATED full mature vegetation but REPRODUCED vegetation "spontanesouly as a result of the rains" and he is talking about CULTIVATED grains due to human intervention.

you have to speculate this point. That is not how the passage reads. Note:

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth

and

no plant had yet sprung up

This isn't in the context of reproduction from existant plants but initial phases. That is how the passage reads. Note

At the end of the dry season, and after five months of drought, the hills
of Israel are as dry as dust, and the vegetation is brown. The farmer's field
is as hard as iron, so plowing and planting are impossible.

is the condition of the term "dust" indicated in this passage

dust of the ground

Note contextually with this document another culturally relevant document is similar in design and it states as related here in the Journal

A creation text from Ur,
in just such a series of introductory clauses describing not yet existent realities as those that
begin the Yahwist's epic

If you deny there was full mature CREATED vegetation then you deny any available FOOD source for Adam and Eve for MONTHS.

First I don't take it as literally as you do and secondly there is a special situation with regard to the Garden of Eden.

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed

Now your use of figurative value which each day possess is more in line with my thinking yet I had to ask about the speculative aspect of it. Certainly your first point is taken. However each other day seems to be of personal speculation rather than supported scripturally.

The Biblical analogy provided in the days of creation are as follows in keeping with inspired commentary on the first day:

1. Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 interprets day one with the origin of the light of life in revelation of God to the elect in the face of Jesus Christ - Let there be light is life and knoweldge - regeneration.

2. Day two is all about SEPARATION or a biblical analogy of Sanctification that follows regeneration.

3. Day three is about MANFEST LIFE or fruits of sanctification - Let the earth bring forth.... or the fruit of the Spirit

4. Day four is about MANIFEST LIGHTS - witnesses (The moon = Christ's Congregation in a dark world - Stars the sons of God in a dark world. Sun the Son of God as the Light of the World.

5. Day five and Six is about LIFE AFTER ITS KIND which is the natural product of "WITNESSES"in the previous day.

6. Day six is about CONFORMATION TO THE IMAGE OF GOD - final glorification of man, resurrection from the dust of the earth and conformation to the Image of God in glorification.

7. Day Seven is about a world that has been rid of sin so that God can look upon a whole creation and say "it is very good."

 

[Dr. Walter]

you have to speculate this point.

I am simply agreeing with your Westminister man. He uses the term "wild" and "spontaneous" to describe the first and the word "cultivated" to describe the second. If you don't accept that then why quote him??????

Creation Scientists interpret the first as a commentary to the fact that none of the existing plants originated by implantation in the soil and/or by human cultivation but were created full term all at once on day three. That seems pretty clear, easy and perfectly harmonous with day three.

that is not how the passage reads

That is not how you choose to read it. That is certainly how your Westminister Man is reading it which you approvingly quote. He is the one who described it as referring to "wild" rather than created and "spontaneous" due to natural processes rather than divine by creation. He is the one that referred to the second as "cultivated" not created.

Note: and This isn't in the context of reproduction from existant plants but initial phases.

If it is "initial phrases" then it is a denial rather than an affirmation that the inital phrases were due to SPONTANEOUS production or HUMAN cultivation.

Certainly your first point is taken.

The first point is the conclusion of divine inspiration. Paul interprets the first day as the starting point in the Christian life. Why would the other days have any other figurative application than what the first day is applied to? What grounds do you have to insert some other kind of analogy into these days?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am simply agreeing with your Westminister man. He uses the term "wild" and "spontaneous" to describe the first and the word "cultivated" to describe the second. If you don't accept that then why quote him??????

He is not ascribing secondary offspring if that is what you are thinking. He is indicating the word usage indicating a two fold problem No rain no wild plant life, No Man no cultivated plant life.

Creation Scientists interpret the first as a commentary to the fact that none of the existing plants originated by implantation in the soil and/or by human cultivation but were created full term all at once on day three. That seems pretty clear, easy and perfectly harmonous with day three.

Creation scientist are (as do many people) force fitting the passages to fill their need to verify a 6 day creation period. And are reading into the text. Take the text as is and that is not what you get. And even more when you compare it with comtemporary liturature you get a similar picture.

In those days no canals were opened,
No dredging was done at dikes and ditches on dike tops.
The seeder plough and ploughing had not yet been instituted
for the knocked under and downed people.
No (one of) all the countries was planting in furrows.

That is not how you choose to read it. That is certainly how your Westminister Man is reading it which you approvingly quote. He is the one who described it as referring to "wild" rather than created and "spontaneous" due to natural processes rather than divine by creation. He is the one that referred to the second as "cultivated" not created.

I think you not contextualizing him. But rather looking for Key phrases to which you would like to see.

The first point is the conclusion of divine inspiration. Paul interprets the first day as the starting point in the Christian life.

Very possibly Paul certainly doesn't continue with this mention of them. Therefore you've taken Paul and ran away with it a bit.

Why would the other days have any other figurative application than what the first day is applied to? What grounds do you have to insert some other kind of analogy into these days?

To answer the first I'll start with the last. There is no basis for the latter analogy and I havent proffered one. You suggested it. Since its not in scripture its derived at and thus any analogy can seemingly fit.

 

[Dr. Walter]

He is not ascribing secondary offspring if that is what you are thinking. He is indicating the word usage indicating a two fold problem No rain no wild plant life, No Man no cultivated plant life.


Creation scientist are (as do many people) force fitting the passages to fill their need to verify a 6 day creation period. And are reading into the text. Take the text as is and that is not what you get. And even more when you compare it with comtemporary liturature you get a similar picture.

I think you not contextualizing him. But rather looking for Key phrases to which you would like to see.

Very possibly Paul certainly doesn't continue with this mention of them. Therefore you've taken Paul and ran away with it a bit. To answer the first I'll start with the last. There is no basis for the latter analogy and I havent proffered one. You suggested it. Since its not in scripture its derived at and thus any analogy can seemingly fit.

You have a sharp mind and the problem with a sharp mind is the ability to intellectually deny the truth even when it is obvious. I simply disagree with your reasonings and conclusions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have a sharp mind and the problem with a sharp mind is the ability to intellectually deny the truth even when it is obvious. I simply disagree with your reasonings and conclusions.

I appreciate your compliment. Thank you. I can also appreciate your warning that its easy to rationalize just about anything. However, as clearly as you see your view I see mine. And I can live with you disagreeing with my conclussions. We can disagree and I'm ok with it. And of course I respect your position as well. A literal 6 days of creation inclusive of a young earth. We do agree on one particular issue. God created the universe an in some way recorded it in scriptures.

I just hope that I've made a case for a believing Christian not to hold to a literal 6 day's of creation view in the same venue as young earth theorist hold, yet still believe in the inerrancy of scripture, a real Adam and Eve, and most specifically Jesus Christ and his saving power.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I just hope that I've made a case for a believing Christian not to hold to a literal 6 day's of creation view in the same venue as young earth theorist hold, yet still believe in the inerrancy of scripture, a real Adam and Eve, and most specifically Jesus Christ and his saving power.

I have never stated a person must believe in the inspiration of Scriptures or in the Genesis account in order to be a Christian. However, in my estimation you have made no case for your position at all.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have never stated a person must believe in the inspiration of Scriptures or in the Genesis account in order to be a Christian. However, in my estimation you have made no case for your position at all.

You may not have but others on this site have. I believe I've made a case whether you agree, or accept is irrelevant. But the fact is born again (from above) believers may have a divergent belief about this particular debate and be no less so.

 

[DHK]

I appreciate your compliment. Thank you. I can also appreciate your warning that its easy to rationalize just about anything. However, as clearly as you see your view I see mine. And I can live with you disagreeing with my conclussions. We can disagree and I'm ok with it. And of course I respect your position as well. A literal 6 days of creation inclusive of a young earth. We do agree on one particular issue. God created the universe an in some way recorded it in scriptures.

I just hope that I've made a case for a believing Christian not to hold to a literal 6 day's of creation view in the same venue as young earth theorist hold, yet still believe in the inerrancy of scripture, a real Adam and Eve, and most specifically Jesus Christ and his saving power.

If your case for not believing in a literal six day creation rests on a faulty interpretation of Genesis chapter two, then you have no case at all.

Stick to chapter one, and examine it carefully.
If they aren't literal six days what are they? Thousand year days? Thousand year nights? What is "the morning and the evening" referring to?

Can plant life last through a thousand years of darkness?
The answer is No. They need sunlight to survive.

Can plant life survive without insects (created on a separate day)?
No. They need bees to pollinate them in order to reproduce and bring forth fruit. A thousand years would kill them off. Likewise the bees need the plants to survive. They would not be able to survive without the plants.

These are some of the impossibilities of the thousand year day theory. It is scientifically impossible. All of nature cannot exist under such a model. Plants and animals require light. What about man himself? God ceased from his creation the seventh day, not the sixth. Did man endure a thousand years of darkness before the seventh day? I don't read that Adam lived longer than a thousand years. Too many contradictions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You may not have but others on this site have. I believe I've made a case whether you agree, or accept is irrelevant. But the fact is born again (from above) believers may have a divergent belief about this particular debate and be no less so.

Let me be clear! Although salvation does not depend upon a man's particular view of the Genesis account or belief in plenary inspiriation of the Scriptures, however, when that denial is coupled with denial of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works there is sufficient room to ponder the genuine salvation experience.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me be clear! Although salvation does not depend upon a man's particular view of the Genesis account or belief in plenary inspiriation of the Scriptures, however, when that denial is coupled with denial of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works there is sufficient room to ponder the genuine salvation experience.

What does this have to do with faith or faith alone? I'm speaking of Genesis' creation account. What does your caveat have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If your case for not believing in a literal six day creation rests on a faulty interpretation of Genesis chapter two, then you have no case at all.

Faulty according to whom? You? You have no greater authority to intepret it than I.

as for the rest of your post I've already explained how I view genesis 1 and how to view the 6 days of creation.

 

[DHK]

Faulty according to whom? You? You have no greater authority to intepret it than I.

as for the rest of your post I've already explained how I view genesis 1 and how to view the 6 days of creation.

This is how you explained your view:

God made man on the six day 3 days after there was vegitation. But you want me to take genesis literally and when you come across this contradiction you resort to "Well God wasn't being specific but general". I mean I have to laugh. At least you didn't say I wasn't a Christian because I don't believe the literal 6 day view. I believe the genesis account isn't meant to be scientific but organization and the mode of organization is by day for easy memory. 1 day general overview 4 day more specific 2 day general overview 5 day more specific 3 day General overview 6 day more specific. Creation uses a mode of 3s. Thus 3 general overview and 3 specific. with in the already created account a 7th is then added as a holy day. That is my view

No clarity at all. The only conclusion I get out of this is that "God contradicts himself."