Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[I Am Blessed 24]

Literal, 6-day creation - young earth/universe.

 

[Allan]

Actually, this isn't unique to this site. The JEPD theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch is highly regarded scholarship and has been around for years. It posits that the Torah is an amalgam of writings from various wirters. I learned about this back in Bible class in High School in 1970.

You mean the same highly regarded scholarship that describes the bible as a book of myths and legends and equates it as the same with pagan mythologies such as Greek, Egyptian, Babylonians, and other such religions?
The same that state Jesus was just an ordinary man who's legend was embelished after his death by his disciples?

Yes, their works are highly regarded .. by the non-christian.



However back to the OP, the earth was created .. according to scripture.. in 6 literal days and that that the most scriptural and scientific truth about the age of the earth is that it is a young earth.


EDITTED IN --
Yes, it does posits a opinion but neglects a specific biblical fact that negates their opinion entirely. That being it is not an amalgamation of other beliefs but that those other beliefs are actually an amalgatiom of its truths that are twisted with lies specific to each group and the truths they wished to not believe. IOW - The account of Gen is true and that there was actaully a world wide flood but that as the desendants of Noah children began branch out some did not desire to hold to the truths God had given and began to add to it what they wished and removed what they didn't like. Thus what we have today 'the scriptures' is really the truth which was known but twisted and perverted into all the religions you see today.

 

[Allan]

I had a feeling people would go after the guy for holding to the JEDP theory...when you can't confront the Hebriac arguments go for the knees I guess.

For what it's worth their comments on the Hebrew structure are pretty good. If you can get past certain elements of scholarship (which legitimate scholars of all ranks must do at some point) there are valid things being said on that site.

There is no argument, that is the point. It is pure conjecture that posits an opinion as truth. IOW - a theory made up to try to contradict!

 

[donnA]

6 days, just like God said.

 

[lbaker]

Here's a good link for information on an old Earth, non-literal view.

http://genesisproclaimed.dnsalias.org:88/genesisproclaimed/home.asp

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Creationism

I am posting this poll to just get a sense of what the Baptists on this board believe and/or their churches believe/teach regarding the various creation beliefs.

I am going to assume you have at least a cursory understanding of the various positions.

What are the different positions. I understand the literal six day and theistic evolution but I don't know what Gap theory is. can you explain these

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"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."


I think most could agree that it is not the focus of the text itself, but the subject of time is brought into focus because of false teaching. I have not seen anything except forces outside the text of Scripture lead a person to an alternate view of the days of creation (Day Age Theory) or Gap Theory, or any other theory that could be invented. It is not the text of Scripture giving us this interpretation.

However, if a person begins from outside the text of Scripture, then he or she can read into the text the interpretation they are bringing. I think most of us would aim to avoid this, but it does happen. We should examine our hearts and thinking and try to honestly make an assessment of what is motivating us to an alterntive interpretation of Genesis. Is it the text of Scripture itself that has given us the impression that God made things over a long period of time?

Does Scripture give us the impression that God used a process which we call darwinian evolution to create mankind as we see them today? If not, what is motivating us to try to see these things in the text of Scripture? Is the ridicule of the world too much to bear? Do we covet the praise of men more than the praise of God?

And if we suppose our beliefs more noble than cowardice, that we say our different interpretation of Genesis is from the evidence of science, is our science sound? Are there other, even more rational and reasonable, explainations and interpretations of the data and evidence than darwinism?

Of course, I believe the answer is yes. I believe darwinism, what is now called neo-darwinism due to the study of genetics (I think), is utterly absurd and beyond the scope of rational thought. It is mere fantasy and highly illusionary. I say that it is illusionary because if it wasn't, no one would believe it.

The work of creation scientists has been to dispel the illusion. But not just those with a prior commitment to Holy Scripture. There are others, and not a few, who are no more Christian than an atheistic evolutionist, who are rejecting darwinism as a plausable mechansism for explaining the origin of life. Some still believe the processes of natural selection and adaptation and mutations are sufficent to account for what is called macroevolution. This is highly problematic in itself. But the point stands: many are abandoning darwinism because it utterly fails to explain the origin of life, and the fantastical belief that life spontaneously happened is so pattenly absurd and contrary to science as we know, its no wonder people are giving it up. Probability alone refutes the notion beyond a reasonable doubt.

What chaps my hide is the blatent dishonesty with which modern scientistis and their offspring treat the evidence. Their logical fallacies seem to know no end and they have no qualms using them until someone points them out. Their tactics of persusation are that of equivocation and humiliation. I see these things as those who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Yet to be merciful and understanding is greatly needed. These men and women are decieved themselves.

So it is with great patience in understanding that I think we should enter a conversation with them, and with great love of them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What are the different positions. I understand the literal six day and theistic evolution but I don't know what Gap theory is. can you explain these

Here ya go... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp

 

[Thinkingstuff]

creation?

Here ya go... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp

Thanks. There was one theory not mentioned but found in some christian works That the 6 days are not literal but reptresentarive of the process in otherwords the first 3 days are the base and that the next three days build upon the first 3 days or completing that segment of creation. So that the 1st day correlates to the 4th day, the 2nd with the 5th, and the 3rd with the 6th. And it uses' the ancients worlds view of numbers as alegory to support that the number 7 represents God's working the the world and the completion includes a day of rest. I don't know what this theory is called but I've seen it listed in several areas.

 

[lbaker]

Thanks. There was one theory not mentioned but found in some christian works That the 6 days are not literal but reptresentarive of the process in otherwords the first 3 days are the base and that the next three days build upon the first 3 days or completing that segment of creation. So that the 1st day correlates to the 4th day, the 2nd with the 5th, and the 3rd with the 6th. And it uses' the ancients worlds view of numbers as alegory to support that the number 7 represents God's working the the world and the completion includes a day of rest. I don't know what this theory is called but I've seen it listed in several areas.

Isn't that the view that the Genesis account is supposed to be a rebuttal of the Sumerian creation myths?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

creationism

Isn't that the view that the Genesis account is supposed to be a rebuttal of the Sumerian creation myths?

Probably but it would seem to go against a six day creation view even so.

 

[preachinjesus]

Isn't that the view that the Genesis account is supposed to be a rebuttal of the Sumerian creation myths?

If you were to look at several early pagan creation epics, note their high points, and compare them to the first 34 verses of Genesis there are some amazing polemical answers to the pagan myths.

Great point btw...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you were to look at several early pagan creation epics, note their high points, and compare them to the first 34 verses of Genesis there are some amazing polemical answers to the pagan myths.

Great point btw...

yeah like the Ennuma Elish

 

[lbaker]

yeah like the Ennuma Elish

That the one about Tiamat, (or something like that) right? Some big sea beast/god that gets killed by some hero/god?

I've read some stuff on all that but am foggy on how it all goes now.

Anyway, seems like the point of Genesis 1, etc. was that God, the real God, is bigger and better than all those pagan deities, and He is the real Creator. That's what Genesis is teaching, not a literal science lesson about Cosmology.

 

[lbaker]

Probably but it would seem to go against a six day creation view even so.

Yeah, I think it does.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "day" at Dictionary.com. There are 56 definitions of the word.

Examples:

1. the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.
2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.
3. Astronomy. a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.
b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.
c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.

4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.
5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.
6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.
7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.
9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.
10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.
12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.

Note that definition No. 12 would mean an era which could be a very long time.

 

[webdog]

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "day" at Dictionary.com. There are 56 definitions of the word.

Examples:



Note that definition No. 12 would mean an era which could be a very long time.

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day.

The bolded eliminates #12 as a possibility. It was a day as we know it.

 

[Amy.G]

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "day" at Dictionary.com. There are 56 definitions of the word.

Examples:



Note that definition No. 12 would mean an era which could be a very long time.

So? Are you saying that the phrase "and the evening and the morning" means a very long time?

Gen 1:7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Why doesn't it say "and God called the firmament Heaven. So this was the second day."? Or "this was the third day" and so on?

There is a purpose for it being written the way it was. The plain reading of the text "evening and morning" is that it is referring to a normal 24 hour day. There is no mystical or scientific meaning hidden in the text.

 

[dan e.]

A 24 hour day is one revolution around the sun, is it not? So then...it makes sense that we can safely presume that the first 24 hour day would've been after the universe (sun, stars, planets) was created...which was day four.

I think from that point on we can look at what we know about 24 hours and say after day four they were 24 hour days. Before then...maybe they were...maybe they weren't. We can only speculate....but there was no Sun for the earth to revolve around, so how can we be certain it was 24 hours??

Again...maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "day" at Dictionary.com. There are 56 definitions of the word.

Examples:



Note that definition No. 12 would mean an era which could be a very long time.

Such is the case with most words. Context defines meaning. Using our word day is not different.

"Back in the day, I was very rebellious."

"I was very rebellious that day."

"There was evening and morning, one day, I was rebellious."

"And the evening and the morning were the first day. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And the evening and the morning were the third day. et. et."

Biblically, how were these evenings and mornings counted? When God divided the light from the darkness. He called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Do you suppose that day and night were divided in a different time interval at the beginning than they are today? Did it take a million years for the sun (or really for the earth to revolve) to rise or set and now it takes around 24 hours?

I don't any of us believe in long age cylces of the earth. We can discuss the issue of day and night with no sun, but its a bunny trail from my point. The context of Genesis gives the revolution of the earth as the span of the word day, or yom in Hebrew. While day can mean 24 hours or a long period of time in Hebrew or English, it is the context that helps define the meaning.

I think that when we begin with the text we do not come away with long periods meant for the use of yom in Genesis regarding the creation days. When we are convinced by the interpretaions of modern science or embarrased by the mockery given to those who do not accept it, we are willing to re-interpret Genesis.