In the Beginning....

[Luke2427]

OK but I did mention both day 3 and day 6. So let me just make mention of the issue for your interest.

When God created on the 3rd day the bible states that God gave the botanical creation time to yield and God observed the result and said it was good. So the old earther would say this does support the old earth model because the trees, grass, flowers, seeds..etc had time to grow. This was NOT a supersped miracle but a period of time took place to allow natural growth. The young earther would say it was all fit into a 24 hour period, therefore the text in verse 12 had to refer to a supernatural growth whereby the course of growth was compacted down into that 24 hour period.



If you take the position this is a speeded up accounted then you would be doing that only to the convenience of trying to fit a 24 hour day time period. And again, why it that necessary if you are trying to understand the bible for the information it contains rather than defending a particular position?


Now the sixth day account with Adam and Eve -



God had created all the rest on day 6 AND rested, therefore after day 6 God did not complete any more creation projects, therefore Eve was formed on day 6. Therefore the events in ch2 follow that of day 6 NOT after the 7th day.



And that is the reason that Adam's activities on day 6 cannot logically be a speeded up day, Adam was in time and apart of the natural temporal physis of time. Again, is there really a necessary onus to interpret a day as a 24 hour period given the events of each day? These are not my arguments I am simply relaying the information as I have read it myself. To say the old earth model has no biblical support to me is crazy.

Darren

good stuff. thanks

 

[Mexdeaf]

I'm just gonna say- "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant still" and leave it at that.

 

[annsni]

Day 3 the land produced vegetation which would not fit a 24 hour period under the natural process of growth.

Well, neither does creating man who could walk and talk right away.

We're not talking the natural process of growth here unless we're looking at evolution. God created full plants that produced vegetation. It's not hard for Him.

 

[annsni]

Right. But think of it this way, Sis. On the "DAWN" of Columbus's "DAY" the matter of the shape of the earth was still a matter of great debate.
But as the "SUN SET" on that "DAY" the world, other than a few unreasonable Christians who held to flat earth erroneously thinking that was the Bible teaching on the matter, most understood the earth to be round.

There you find the same type of terminology to describe an age.

there was an age when God created this and an age when he created that. Those ages are marked by evenings and mornings in a figurative sense.

This is the only position that both Scripture and Science allows.

Remember, all truth is God's truth.

That there is your problem.

As I pointed out, an ordinal number and day do not ever mean age. We are speaking regular day here, not age.

 

[annsni]

You are wrong, Sis. The Hebrew does not demand that it is a 24 hour period as many Hebrew scholars will tell you- one of which is Delitzsch, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of all time.

In my research, I will disagree.

And I'd like to know how Gruden was taken out of context. Hugh Ross is a highly respected man. I doubt you've found something so quickly that undermines that.

He is presenting the different viewpoints - not that he believes this one viewpoint. It is under the heading a. "Old Earth" Theories of Creation; (1)Day-Age View. He also addresses the Literary Framework View as (2). So it is taken out of context as saying it is his own view, which it is not.

 

[Robert Snow]

In my research, I will disagree.

What research is that?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Luke 24:27 -

I asked this a few pages but it may have been lost in the amounts of responses and if you're like me, Sunday's are very busy.

You said that you arrived at your view of the days of Genesis 1 from your study of the original languages. And that science confirmed it.

My question is if science all pointed out that we have a young earth, would you go against science and say, "No, the Bible teaches that the earth is old."

 

[annsni]

What research is that?

In my personal research.

 

[Jim1999]

There is a lot of mythical teaching on both sides of the question and many have posed solutions all through the years. Some fundamentalists presented the "gap theory" to justify certain conflicts between strict creationism and scientific findings. This just shows that there were some questions about the beginnings.

The "day" has many meanings in both Hebrew and biblical teachings. It is not always a 24 hour period as we moderns know a day to be.

I have no problem with "in the beginning, God........." I do have a problem with how many write of geological events that are quite evident in history. For example, the evolution of North America, a proven ice-age and development of the hills, dales and cliffs and their rock formations. The only debate here is the timing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am a firm believer in the six 24 hour day concept.

However, I won't divide with a brother over this one.

 

[Revmitchell]

Weasel words.

Darren

uh...just because you cannot deal with it does not lend to your statement here.

 

[Mexdeaf]

In my personal research.

As my personal interpretation of Romans 14:5 says:

"Let every woman be fully persuaded in her own mind." :laugh:

 

[jimc06]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

Here are a couple passages that take Genesis allegorically/typologically. Of course, these do not deny the historicity of the book, but why don't they validate a figurative interpretation, also?

24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Galatians 4:24 (NAS)


14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Romans 5:14 (NAS)

These seem to be clear, simple statements. Similarly, when God wants us to know the Cross is literal, there are many clear, simple statements to that effect from Luke, Paul, John, and Peter. So my question is, what clear, simple statements indicate literal interpretation of the creation event?

Most arguments come from literary analysis, by comparing it to other narratives. Ok, I suggest that we also compare it to other written examples of direct revelation, since it must be that.

What's wrong with this?

 

[annsni]

As my personal interpretation of Romans 14:5 says:

"Let every woman be fully persuaded in her own mind." :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Robert Snow]

In my personal research.

Well, I'm sure that "research" you have done is extensive. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

Well, I'm sure that "research" you have done is extensive. :laugh:

Are you laughing at me?

Actually, it is. I'm continually a student of Scripture and with the internet and a great church library, I have a limitless source of materials.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Ann,
You have 2 things going against you: 1) you're not a "professional" and only professionals can research, and 2) you didn't come up with the same conclusion, so you could not have done real research.

His response sure sounded patronizing.

:tongue3:

 

[annsni]

Ann,
You have 2 things going against you: 1) you're not a "professional" and only professionals can research, and 2) you didn't come up with the same conclusion, so you could not have done real research.

True. Maybe I should just sit at home and watch soaps and eat bon-bons. It sure would be easier but then my mind would whither away.....

His response sure sounded patronizing.

:tongue3:

Ya think???

 

[Darrenss1]

uh...just because you cannot deal with it does not lend to your statement here.

False. You use a false claim to demand agreement to your position. Such as unless one agrees to a 24 hour day period for genesis 1 they will be denying the gospel and creation.

you said -

The truth is an old earth is contradictory to the gospel, it is contradictory to creation itself.

I call it weasel words, to steamroll an argument just because you have a different interpretation does not mean the alternative view is contrary to scripture.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Well, neither does creating man who could walk and talk right away.

We're not talking the natural process of growth here unless we're looking at evolution. God created full plants that produced vegetation. It's not hard for Him.

How do you know?

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

There is nothing in the actual context that demands super speed growth, you simply have to assume that based on a 24 hour period of time.

Who said anything about evolution ?? :BangHead:

Darren