six day literal creation?

"Here are some excellent books I highly recommend for those in a position of wanting to know more about the side that is so mocked (creation science)

In Six Days; why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation -- edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D., New Holland Publishers, 1999"

Another poster has copied a few of these essays to threads on the board. As a courtesy, here are links to some of them if the reader is interested in reading them.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/41.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/72.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/68.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/53.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/88.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/75.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/82.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/77.html

Enjoy. While I, obviously, disagree with what these guys say, some (most) of you will agree and find them relevant. Both sides may want to read them.

"Darwin's Black Box; the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution -- Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, 1996"

It should be noted that early in the book Behe states that "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it," including that of humans and the other apes. He seems to doubt the mechanisms not that the process has actually taken place.

"Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? -- Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000"

His basic premise, stated early in the book is that most scientists see the weaknesses in their own areas yet think that the evidence must be strong in areas with which they are not familiar. As he says "Some biologists are aware of difficulties with a particular icon because it distorts the evidence in their own field. When they read the scientific literature in their specialty, they can see that the icon is misleading or downright false. But they may feel that this is just an isolated problem, especially when they are assured that Darwin's theory is supported by overwhelming evidence from other fields. If they believe in the fundamental correctness of Darwinian evolution, they may set aside their misgivings about the particular icon they know something about."

Once you can show that this is not the opinion of the experts in the various related fields, his premise falls apart. Here is a response that does just that. It is pretty long.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

"Darwin on Trial -- Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 1991

The Right Questions; Truth and Meaning in Public Debate -- Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 2002"

Here is another case where the author might accept common descent. He is a bit fuzzy. But he does say in Darwin on Trial that "`Creationism' means belief in creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are `creationists' if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose." So according to Johnson, we are all creationist here.

 

In this case I know, personally, each of those three authors. Read Johnson's later book, which I also recommended. No doubts left.

Wells shows that science has KNOWN that its 'icons' are false for some time now.

Behe demonstrates what he has found in his own research -- that there are processes in living organisms which do not work if a part is missing. This implies the concept of irreducible complexity. He is a sort of 'partial evolutionist' -- he is still going with a form of common descent to the best of my knowledge (I don't know him as well as I know Jonathan Wells and Phil Johnson), but denies that it all could have happened without divine intervention, even in stages.

The books are well worth the read and are presented with data, common sense, and very easy to understand progressions. They all show that evolution won't fly. At least not scientifically. It does great as a religious system, though! (Which is what Huxley always intended it should be, by the way)

 

6 days.

Science is trying despirately to prove that the Bible is wrong, and that there is no God. I'm suprised to see many Christians choosing to take the rough guesses and estimations of man over the information that is in the Word.

 

"And the evening and the morning were the first day" --God

"And the evening and the morning were the second day." --God

"And the evening and the morning were the third day." --God

"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." --God

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day." --God

"And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." --God

Forget all of the quotes from the humanistic, atheistic scientists, I will stick with the quotes from God, it was six literal 24-hour days!

 

We can determine how "yom" should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word used and then comparing it's context with how we see its usage elsewhere throughout scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis wrote a good article on this. It's published at - http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/study_guides/answersSG2.pdf. Mr. Ham writes, "The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1: Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period]. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ (23 times each) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + ‘night’ (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day."

Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:8)

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

I think its quite clear by the context that the Author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation up until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community and the Earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence for Noah's flood, Noah's flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-Flood, ant-Bible interpretation with the Genesis 1 account by reinterpreting "yom" as meaning vast unspecified periods of time. This was a mistake.

The truth is, the evidences in favor of Noah's flood and a young earth far outnumber those in favor of an old earth and many of the old earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. Unfortunately the scientific community is entrenched on the matter and apparently they refuse to change their minds despite the weight of evidence contrary to their currently accepted paradigm. But please don't let their stubborn refusal influence how you read your Bible! According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's work week. Work six days, rest one. Rest assured, God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.

Soruce: Got Questions Ministries

 

I agree. "Day" in Genesis 1 means a 24 hour day.

That's where I leave off with Ken Ham.

"The earth's foundation and the heavens were created in verse one. The earth's condition at its founding is described in verse two and Job 38:1-9.

Then an unspecified period of time elapsed.

Then God allowed light to reach the earth's surface causing day one to begin from the earth's perspective.

Potential old universe and old earth's core. Young earth's biosphere and recent life on earth. God did fashion the earth's biosphere in seven literal days.

 

I assume that by attributing these quotes to God, you are just meaning that they are in the Bible, which is God's word. Of course, Genesis 1 does contain quotes attributed to God, but the quotes you mentioned are instead part of the narration by Moses or whoever wrote the account. Anyway, I'll follow your usage.
</font>

• "So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth..." --God</font>
• "The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea..." --God</font>
• "The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water..." --God</font>
• "The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun..." --God</font>
• "The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast..." --God</font>
• "The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates..." --God</font>
• "The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air..." --God</font>

Now, must these bowls be literal, physical bowls? Is there absolutely no possibility that they represent God's wrath being poured out in a somewhat symbolic fashion, even though the events described by the bowls will literally happen? Of course, you can't tell by looking at the word translated "bowl" or "vial" in Revelation 16. According to Strong's, it means "a broad, shallow bowl; a deep saucer". It's used in combination with the verb "pour out", but again that doesn't help to show that the bowl is just a bowl. The whole premise of symbolism is that words with a certain meaning can be used to represent something greater or more profound, so determining that a word can mean something physical does not answer the question about symbolic usage.

Anyway, I'm sure some do see these bowls as literal, physical bowls. That's fine. But to claim that they couldn't possibly be symbolic, or that the days of Genesis couldn't possibly be a framework for outlining God's creation, is assuming too much. It does not follow that just because one views the bowls as symbolic, that the judgement detailed within them must not have happened. It also does not follow that just because one views the days of Genesis 1 as a literary framework, that the creation events itemized within them must not have happened (along with many other creation events not itemized, such as the creation of angels, seaweed and bacteria). There are reasons why many Christians, scholars and otherwise, disagree about the literalness of the seven days of Genesis 1 and the seven bowls of Revelation 16.

 

You guys will do anything to get away from the clear meaning and intent of Genesis, won't you?

 

I've found that young-earth creationists are quick to depart from the clear meaning and intent of Genesis as well. Just look at how creatively they twist Genesis 2 in order to line up its order of events with Genesis 1.

 

If you pay attention to the Hebrew verbs, you will find there is no difference in the order of events.

 

Genesis defines a day. Some believe that due to the conservation of momentum the rotation of the earth increased when the water fell to the earth.

 

Would you please give us an example since you are now discussing something that I actually have a lot of knowledge about?

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

Mercury,

no one has to twist anything to make Gen 2 line up with Gen 1. They are fine just as they are.

 

I agree that they are fine just as they are. However, if you take them as literal history, it can be tough to fit them together. Do you agree with Genesis 2:5-7 that man was formed before any bush of the field was yet in the land and any small plant of the field had yet sprung up? Or, were all kinds of vegetation created and declared by God to be good three days earlier? Do you think Genesis 2:19 is out of sequence from the surrounding verses, and if so, what in the text indicates this?

 

Gen 2:5-7 does not indicate that man was created before the plants. It clearly states that this is the story of how God created the heavens and earth from the time before there were plants on through to the time God created man. Then it says that God planted a Garden and THEN God placed Adam in it.
And no, Gen 2:19 is NOT out of sequence, it is simply making reference to the fact that God had created every animal already. They were all created on the same day, anyway(land animals and man were created on the sixth day).....so there is no need for it to be "out of sequence" at all.

 

One thing that never ceases to surprise me in these discussions is how some are so sure that their interpretation is clearly stated in the Bible, even when it appears to be no such thing. Here's those verses you are interpreting:

"When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground -- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Genesis 2:5-8, ESV)

Now, do you feel this is a bad translation? I don't see how other translations help much. Even the NIV doesn't smooth over all the difficulties here. I don't have much Hebrew knowledge, but generally those who try to reorder these events don't find much support in the Hebrew for doing so. These verses seem to be quite clear that when these plants didn't exist God formed the man. Part of the reason these plants didn't exist was because there was no man. I just don't see how it can be turned around to read the other way.

That seems quite clear to me, yet you claim your view is clear to you. Could you explain your interpretation in your own words in a bit more detail?

How does it make reference to the fact that God had created every animal already? If you think verse 19 should read "Out of the ground the LORD God had formed...", then should verse 18 read "The LORD God had said..." and verse 21 read "The LORD God had caused a deep sleep..."? If not, how do you know that this is what is clearly meant by verse 19?

No, read it carefully. Included in the animals God forms between forming Adam and Eve are the birds -- every bird of the heavens, in fact. They were created on day five in Genesis 1.

 

One thing that never ceases to surprise me in these discussions is how some are so sure that their interpretation is clearly stated in the Bible, even when it appears to be no such thing. Here's those verses you are interpreting:

"When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground -- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Genesis 2:5-8, ESV)

Mercury, your quote did not start at the BEGINNING of the sentence. Verse FOUR starts that sentence.....here is the proper quote....."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,"........obviously you made a mistake in your basic English by not looking at the punctuation which tells us that a comma at the end of verse FOUR means that verse FIVE is a continuation of the entire thought.

[qb]Now, do you feel this is a bad translation? I don't see how other translations help much. Even the NIV doesn't smooth over all the difficulties here. I don't have much Hebrew knowledge, but generally those who try to reorder these events don't find much support in the Hebrew for doing so. These verses seem to be quite clear that when these plants didn't exist God formed the man. Part of the reason these plants didn't exist was because there was no man. I just don't see how it can be turned around to read the other way.

That seems quite clear to me, yet you claim your view is clear to you. Could you explain your interpretation in your own words in a bit more detail?

All of what you just said is moot because you MISQUOTED your Bible, no matter what translation you use.

How does it make reference to the fact that God had created every animal already? If you think verse 19 should read "Out of the ground the LORD God had formed...", then should verse 18 read "The LORD God had said..." and verse 21 read "The LORD God had caused a deep sleep..."? If not, how do you know that this is what is clearly meant by verse 19?

No, read it carefully. Included in the animals God forms between forming Adam and Eve are the birds -- every bird of the heavens, in fact. They were created on day five in Genesis 1. </font>[/QUOTE]Like I said, it is referencing something which had already happened.

Some people actually say that God created a new set of all the animals specially for Adam to name, but I don't really know that I would hold to that view.

 

I have tried to fix that post above but it just isnt working for me......


Im sorry its so hard to read.

This is what I was trying to say.....

Mercury, first of all, your quote is misleading because it begins in the middle of a sentence. Quote the ENTIRE thought, don't quote part of a sentence and then try to take your argument from there. The ENTIRE thought is......

"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,
Ge 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Ge 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Ge 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

What do you think God was watering before He formed man? Dust? God was watering the dirt? Obviously He was watering the plants He had just talked about.


Chapter 2 is a more specific picture of God's creation of man.....given right after God's overview of what He did on each specific day.

BTW, if the "days" are millions of years, than how did the plants live for that long without the sun?

Ok, verse 19 is simply stating several facts. God had formed animals and birds, too, and He brought them before Adam to name them. Why does that HAVE to mean that God had JUST formed them? He had formed the birds the day before.....why does He have to specify that for us again when He had described it all in the previous chapter?

 

As I noted, I quoted the ESV. In the ESV, verse 5 is a new sentence. Same goes for the NASB, ASV and HCSB.

Now you know that is not the case.

Are you getting tripped up by the odd word order in the KJV? I think it is only due to how the English language has changed since it was translated. Using more standard word order, it would read "And before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew...". This does not indicate that the plants were being created, but rather that the author is talking about a time before these plants existed.

It says the mist "watered the whole face of the ground." Since the previous verses said that those plants weren't in the ground yet, I don't think it is talking about watering them.

I don't think the days are millions of years. The bowls in Revelation 16 are literal bowls within the vision, regardless of whether they are symbolic outside of it. Similarly, I think the days of Genesis 1 are solar days within the account.

It doesn't have to, but it is the plain reading of the text. God said it wasn't good for the man to be alone, so God formed all the animals, and when Adam didn't find a suitable partner among them, God formed Eve. The logic of the account seems to be based on the events being sequential. Everything else in the account appears to be sequential, except for the very blatant temporal recapitulation in verses 8-15. Do you have any reason (aside from harmonizing the account with Genesis 1) for making the first half of verse 19 non-sequential?