Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[Bob Dudley]

Actually, StefanM, the death issue IS simple. Biblically, plants are not alive and do not die. Man and animals die. Plants (created on day 3) were meant for food and were never considered any more alive than the ground. Man and animals (created on day 6) died after the fall.

 

[SBCPreacher]

...The text gives us no indication about how long Adam was alone or how long he and Eve were together in the Garden. Being that the Garden of Eden (I do believe it a literal place at one time) was a state of perfection it is possible that they existed in the Garden in a perfected state for eons without aging a moment. My position is that during this time a created order existed outside of the Garden that could have lasted tens of thousands, if not millions, of years that held to natural (micro) evolutionary processes. Then add on the 1800 or so years between Eden and Noah and you've got a big ball rolling. I just can't believe, given much of what I've seen post-cosmology that the earth and creation are less than 10,000 years old.

But the Bible does say how old Adam was when Seth was born (130, see Gen 5:3), and how old Seth was when Enosh was born (105, see Gen 5:3) and so forth all the way up to Jacob (Israel). Believing that the Bible is true (which I do), it's not real hard to date it all out.

 

[Martin]

Literal, 6-day creation - young earth/universe is the closest to my position. However by young earth, I only mean that I don't believe the millions of years theories put forward. I don't know how old the earth is. Nobody does. Only God knows.

 

[dan e.]

This is absolutely not a secondary issue. If you can prove that there was no Adam and Eve that all humanity comes from, then you can prove there is no such thing as original sin and the punishment for sin.

Completely different subject. Nobody denied Adam and Eve.

And, the type of literature is literal history - not very hard to understand. Jersus took The first several chapters of Genesis as literal history, Paul took it as literal history, Peter took it as literal history, James took it as literal history. Scientists for thousands of years took it as literal history.

Does that necessarily mean that the way it is translated in English is the way it meant in Hebrew? Just asking.

I teach a class in Creation Science at Washington Bible College. Why not come down this fall and sit in on a class or two then see what you think about a literal interpretaion of this part of the Bible.

Congratulations. I'll pass...your humility is too overwhelming.

Or, perhaps, take a tour through the Creation Museum in Kentucky (right ouside Cincinnati, OH).

That, actually, sounds fun. I haven't had the opportunity...like I said in my first post. I lean towards a literal, 6 day creation....but not a hill worth dying on, as I don't see this detail as the point of Genesis.

 

[Deacon]

I agree, but unfortunately some people want to say that since it says in 2 Peter 3:8 that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", that those 6 days are not literal. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to believe that an omnipotent God can create everything in 6 days. I believe He didn't need that long but chose to do it in 6 days.

Peter said it?, don't you really mean Moses? :tongue3: (Psalm 90:4).

Rob

 

[preachinjesus]

But the Bible does say how old Adam was when Seth was born (130, see Gen 5:3), and how old Seth was when Enosh was born (105, see Gen 5:3) and so forth all the way up to Jacob (Israel). Believing that the Bible is true (which I do), it's not real hard to date it all out.

Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall. If Eden was a state of perfection (which most evangelical agree on) than there is no aging thus no reason to keep track of ages.

Notice how children are a result of the Fall...lol, had to toss that out there...

 

[preachinjesus]

This is absolutely not a secondary issue. If you can prove that there was no Adam and Eve that all humanity comes from, then you can prove there is no such thing as original sin and the punishment for sin.

Maybe this is the wrong way to approach this, but why is it that so many believe that those who have legitimate questions about the fundamentalist view of creation are suddenly abdicating the authority of the Scriptures or absconding with the faith Jesus has given to them. I have a very good friend who is a theistic creationist who has no problem with the original sin notion.

I teach a class in Creation Science at Washington Bible College. Why not come down this fall and sit in on a class or two then see what you think about a literal interpretaion of this part of the Bible.

I think dan e. already addressed the back end of that statement. For what it's worth I've sat through a number of these classes (several for degree credit too) and am not convinced in the least. I'm sure you are an apt teacher in this area but in my humble opinion it is all highly dubious reasoning, particularly from the philosophy of science perspective.

editted to add: One other thing. I'm not certain how fluent you are with your biblical Hebrew but in the classes like this which I have attended there is very little mind paid the flow and structure of the unique Hebrew forms in the complimentary accounts of the creation narrative. In fact when asked about specific Hebriac issues the instructors have failed to provide adequate answers to satisfy the honest questions. It would seem to me that creationist teachers would desire to be far more aquainted with the language that the "science" (whatever that means) associated with the epic. Of course maybe this is a case of the Cartesian Modernist tail wagging the evangelical dog...so to speak

 

[Bob Dudley]

Originally poasted By dan e.
your humility is too overwhelming

Unfortunately, no one has ever accused me of being overly humble. Maybe you could pray for me. :thumbs:

Originally poasted By dan e.
Does that necessarily mean that the way it is translated in English is the way it meant in Hebrew? Just asking.

yes

Originally poasted By dan e.
That, actually, sounds fun. I haven't had the opportunity...like I said in my first post. I lean towards a literal, 6 day creation....but not a hill worth dying on, as I don't see this detail as the point of Genesis.

Check out the Answers in Genesis web site (they built the museum). Maybe they will show you the significance of the 6 literal days.

Originally Posted By preachinjesus
Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall.

There is no direct evidence showing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. However, some think that they fell sometime in the late afternoon of the 6th day of creation. The evidence (admittedly weak) comes from the fact that Adam never named his wife until after the fall (Gen 3:20). The thought is that he would have named her right away, not thousands of years later. Therefore, they must have sinned on their first day on earth.

 

[dan e.]

Check out the Answers in Genesis web site (they built the museum). Maybe they will show you the significance of the 6 literal days.

Good website. I agree, but it still doesnt' show that the amount of time that God created is the point of Genesis 1-3.

It isn't. I don't think we should treat Genesis as if the point is how long it took God.

 

[SBCPreacher]

Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall. If Eden was a state of perfection (which most evangelical agree on) than there is no aging thus no reason to keep track of ages.

Notice how children are a result of the Fall...lol, had to toss that out there...

Would you please give me chapter and verse that tells us that Adam's age didn't begin until after the fall? I'd be interested in reading that. Best I can figure, Adam's age (130 at Seth's birth) means 130 years after he was created by God, not after the fall. I would like to see your evidence though - chapter and verse.

 

[Deacon]

IF I remember correctly.... (and maybe I don't, old age creeps up so fast)...

The Jewish calendar starts with the creation of man on day 6.

Rob

 

[Baptist Believer]

But in Genesis, after each day of creation, it says "and the evening and the morning were the (whatever) day". This surely indicates a 24 hour day.

Why?

The Hebrews were not wooden literalists. They often used poetry to tell their story. Furthermore, the sun and the moon were not yet created (see v.16), so (if we're going to try to take this passage literally, in a modern sense) we can't be sure that's a 24-hour cycle like today.

Moreover, the regular, repeating refrain, "there was evening and there was morning - the xxx day" is more like the refrain of a song or poetic repetition than simple prose explaining a series of events.

Furthermore, the word translated "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) has many different meanings, not necessarily a 24-hour day. For instance, in the very next chapter, in Genesis 2:4, the word "yom" is used to define a period longer than 24 hours. Please note that the NIV translation avoids using the English word "day" for the word "yom", probably to avoid upsetting 7-day creationists.

Here's Genesis 2:4 in Hebrew if you want to check it yourself: אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

 

[Amy.G]

Why?

The Hebrews were not wooden literalists. They often used poetry to tell their story. Furthermore, the sun and the moon were not yet created (see v.16), so (if we're going to try to take this passage literally, in a modern sense) we can't be sure that's a 24-hour cycle like today.

Moreover, the regular, repeating refrain, "there was evening and there was morning - the xxx day" is more like the refrain of a song or poetic repetition than simple prose explaining a series of events.

Furthermore, the word translated "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) has many different meanings, not necessarily a 24-hour day. For instance, in the very next chapter, in Genesis 2:4, the word "yom" is used to define a period longer than 24 hours. Please note that the NIV translation avoids using the English word "day" for the word "yom", probably to avoid upsetting 7-day creationists.

The NIV did not "leave out" anything to avoid offending someone. It was translated from different manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV.
Here's Genesis 2:4 in Hebrew if you want to check it yourself: אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

I don't think I've ever met anyone who said Genesis was poetry. I understand that a word can have more than one meaning, but in the creation account the word "day" when used with "evening and morning" means a day (24 hours).

Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

In this context "in the day" obviously means more time than 24 hours.

You haven't proven that "and the evening and the morning" was anything other than a 24 hour day as the Hebrews or any other person would understand it.


(The NIV didn't "leave out" anything that might offend someone. It was translated from a different set of manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV.)

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who said Genesis was poetry.

I guess you have now... I know a lot of people who believe that.

I understand that a word can have more than one meaning, but in the creation account the word "day" when used with "evening and morning" means a day (24 hours).

Except that the text doesn't directly support it. You have to make the assumption that the "evening" and "morning" don't take place within the context of the existence of the moon and the sun.

Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

In this context "in the day" obviously means more time than 24 hours.

Yep.

You haven't proven that "and the evening and the morning" was anything other than a 24 hour day as the Hebrews or any other person would understand it.

Since, in my opinion, the text doesn't teach literal 24-hour days, I am living "proof" of my position.

About 15 years ago in seminary I wrote a paper for biblical interpretation class regarding the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2. I set out to demonstrate that the text was to be taken literally and was perfectly, literally, consistent. I translated the two chapters, read everything on the subject that I could fond in the seminary library (especially the conservative commentaries) and realized that the text was not meant to be literally interpreted.

(The NIV didn't "leave out" anything that might offend someone. It was translated from a different set of manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV.)

It is translated from a different textual variant, but the word "yom" is in there. (If the Hebrew text displayed properly in my last message, you can see it there.)

 

[Ed Edwards]

God's word is true. That's all I know. It says He created everything in 6 days, so He did.

In 2002 I bought 2 houses & sold a house;
in 2003 I bought a house & sold a house.

First the seller and the buyer determine the price of the house.
Second the seller and the buyer determine what the price
of the house means.

I wish I'd figured out that in 2002, it would have saved some money.

I agree with: //God's word is true. That's all I know. It says He created everything in 6 days, so He did.//

I probably don't agree with what others agree with that 'day' means.

In the Bible 'day' is used to mean:

8-hour-day (work day)
12-hour-day (period of light)
24-hour-day (complete day/night cycle at one place on earth)
48-hour-day (complete rotation of the earth at all places on the earth)
Day of the Lord =7-year-day, AKA: Tribulation Period
Day of the Lord = 1,000-year-day, AKA: Millennial Messanic Kingdom -
but usually 'day' = the appropriate time

Here are the prophetic meanings of time units:

hour = appropriate time
day = appropriate time
week = appropriate time
month = appropriate time
year = appropriate time

 

[belvedere]

I believe in a literal 6-day creation. As others have said, the text very clearly describes literal days. From what I know, I believe the earth to be 6000 to 7000 years old, though I haven't studied it extensively.

 

[Bob Dudley]

To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture.

Yom has 5 meanings:
- A period of light in a day/night cycle
- A period of 24 hours
- A general or vague concept of time
- A specific point of time
- A period of a year

A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the 6 days of creation (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31)

Yom is used 2291 times in the Old Testament

Outside of Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times. Each time it means an ordinary day.

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association (but without yom) 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day.

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with “night” 53 times. Each time it mans an ordinary day.

There are other words in Hebrew (such as olam and qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time and none of these appear in Genesis 1.

Whether or not you believe they were 6 literal days, there is no doubt that Moses believed them to be 6 literal days.

 

[webdog]

Literal 6 days...but God created with age already built in. Adam was created a fully adult male, animals were created fully formed, trees and plant life was created fully mature, etc. There is no reason the earth can't be 6000 - 10,000 years old, but have the age of 6 billion years built in to it like the rest of creation.

 

[tinytim]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who said Genesis was poetry. I understand that a word can have more than one meaning, but in the creation account the word "day" when used with "evening and morning" means a day (24 hours).

Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

In this context "in the day" obviously means more time than 24 hours.

You haven't proven that "and the evening and the morning" was anything other than a 24 hour day as the Hebrews or any other person would understand it.


(The NIV didn't "leave out" anything that might offend someone. It was translated from a different set of manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV.)

I have been taught from a boy up that the 1st chapter of Genesis was a poetic song that was sung from Adam up to Moses...

It was easier to pass this along orally through a poetic song.
It also explains why the creation story in Gen. 1 differs from the creation story in Gen 2.

Another twist to this....
If Gen. 1 was a song... God may have taught it to Adam...
And wouldn't that be great to know that God loves music so much his first few words in scripture was Him singing to US!... Like a mother sings to her baby...

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who said Genesis was poetry.

As Baptist Believer mentioned before...howdy...

Actually I'll postulate the first creation narrative is poetry, the second is narrative. The structure of the first account is polemical in nature, dealing specifically with several pagan beliefs head on.