The Seven Days of Creation

[church mouse guy]

Again:

It can be taken as a time-compressed description of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according to a presentation by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:

CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science (audio file)

38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."

1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."

I am not sure if this is exactly what you quoted before from Cambridge but I can tell you that the idea of deep time came from the Hindus, was picked up by the Greeks and Romans, was picked up again from the Greek during the European Enlightenment by atheists and other anti-Chrisitans and non-Christians, and then became a corollary of Evolution because Darwinism needed lots of time to occur. However, the Enlightenment based their deep time on a misunderstanding of the sedimentary layers worldwide which their incipient geology attributed to long periods of erosion instead of recognizing them as the worldwide graveyard of the plant, marine, animal, and human life destroyed in the catastrophic Genesis Flood with wild tectonic plate upheaval creating the seven continents of the world today. The Great Unconformity suggests that the surface of the earth was ground down to its granite core. A new picture of this geology was found in the late 1950s when the bottoms of the oceans were first mapped. As far as I know, none of the Enlightenment geologists is considered correct today.

 

[Jerome]

I am not sure if this is exactly what you quoted before from Cambridge...

It is a transcript of a presentation by Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements (Dever was over there getting a PhD in Ecclesiastical History, he's since become an influential Southern Baptist minister)

 

[church mouse guy]

It is a transcript of a presentation by Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements (Dever was over there getting a PhD in Ecclesiastical History, he's since become an influential Southern Baptist minister)

Well, is this the exact same quotation that you cited once before or is this another quotation?

 

[Jerome]

I added a brief summary and bolded the things relevant to this thread:

Again:

It can be taken as a time-compressed description of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according to a presentation by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:

CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science (audio file)

38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."

1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'm not imagining what he would have written, just looking for evidence in what he did write.
I make no pretense of being unbiased. I think the Bible was written for the common people, and the common people hear it gladly without trying to make it fit scientific theories what were conceived thousands of years after it was written (as with Genesis 1). Since I don't agree with your premise of rejected opportunity, I have not looked for one. I am not presenting a syllogism that the numerical adjective proves without question that the days were 24 hours, just looking it as one piece of the preponderance of evidence that the 7 days were normal days and not something else.

Precisely. For someone predisposed to it, developing it only for himself, or who isn’t logically savvy, your point works just fine. For those wary of such artificiality, and aware of past interpretive failures related to the earth’s status in the solar system, it works not at all. In other words, it is not the sort of thing to bring up as part of a debate, except perhaps for table banging.

However, much worse is rejecting the premise that there should be something to compare with. Not having even searched for such, sounds more than suspicious. And what if it turns out that the Hebrew grammatical forms in Genesis 1 do not really match those of the other occurrences supposedly supporting your point? Are you aware of that argument?

 

[church mouse guy]

I added a brief summary and bolded the things relevant to this thread:

I don't know, Jerome, if you saw the movie Is Genesis History, but here is a clip showing the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

 

[Jerome]

Bro. RLVaughn, you're right that Dever and Clements can't make much of a biblical defense of their position.

have not listened to the link, though.

I'd encourage everyone to listen to their whole presentation. There are other troubling things said. I found it in the audio teachings at monergism.com

Dever and Clements on Christians and Science (audio file)

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the clarification, Jerome. Appreciate it.

 

[rlvaughn]

However, much worse is rejecting the premise that there should be something to compare with. Not having even searched for such, sounds more than suspicious.

As far as suspicions go, I suppose you either have not searched for it, or haven't found it, since you have failed to point out where it exists.

And what if it turns out that the Hebrew grammatical forms in Genesis 1 do not really match those of the other occurrences supposedly supporting your point? Are you aware of that argument?

Feel free to post up any arguments you have in favor of whatever is your view, which I don't think you have disclosed; maybe I have missed it.

 

[church mouse guy]

I think that it is safe to say that the SBC has a lot of old earthers, if not the majority. For example, one of the most influential theologians of our times, Norman Geisler, is old earth. People like Matt Walsh Matt Walsh is a writer, speaker, author, and one of the religious Right’s most influential young voices. who is called religious right but is RCC and considers all Protestantism as heresy is old earth and cannot even recapitulate the beliefs of YECs (Young Earth Creationists). Another Old Earther is Wayne Grudem. However, John MacArthur (Grace To You) may be a YEC--at least he went to Kentucky and seems to be a friend to Ken Ham.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As far as suspicions go, I suppose you either have not searched for it, or haven't found it, since you have failed to point out where it exists.

As far as I know, they do not exist, which is precisely why the point fails in reality

Feel free to post up any arguments you have in favor of whatever is your view, which I don't think you have disclosed; maybe I have missed it.

My view is that the Bible does not focus on the age issue, and that we would do better to focus on those issues that have real traction when dealing with unbelievers. I had decided against it, but I think I will try to make that point a bit clearer or at least expand on it.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As far as I know, they do not exist, which is precisely why the point fails in reality
My view is that the Bible does not focus on the age issue, and that we would do better to focus on those issues that have real traction when dealing with unbelievers. I had decided against it, but I think I will try to make that point a bit clearer or at least expand on it.

Keeping Deacon’s caveat (post #72) in mind, here are some points related to the text and to its interpretation:

Point 1: Neither the OT nor the NT makes an issue of the age of the earth or the universe.

Point 2: The ECF did not hold to a uniform doctrine of the age of the earth or the universe.

Point 3: Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches formulated an ‘age of earth’ doctrine.

Point 4: ‘Yom’ is versatile with more than one definition, even in the first chapter of Genesis.

Point 5: The seventh ‘yom’ was never closed in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible.

Point 6: The word ‘yom’ can mean a long, indefinite period of time.

Point 7: Events during at least some of the six ‘yom’ strongly imply more than 24 hours.

Point 8: “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Point 9: The six days can be understood to apply only to the later development of earth.

Point 10: Church leaders sided against Galileo with an interpretation now abandoned.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As far as I know, they do not exist, which is precisely why the point fails in reality
My view is that the Bible does not focus on the age issue, and that we would do better to focus on those issues that have real traction when dealing with unbelievers. I had decided against it, but I think I will try to make that point a bit clearer or at least expand on it.

The lack of emphasis on the earth’s age in Scripture, and resultant lack of a doctrine among early Christians, coupled with the possibilities for ‘yom’ and an open seventh day set the stage. However, the failure of the church to do science right, due to worldly influence and faulty Bible interpretation, along with further philosophic confusion and resultant attacks on the Bible, created caution and some setbacks, but also served as valuable lessons.

Now, opportunity is greater than ever. With the advent of new scientific discoveries which clash with their cherished philosophical paradigm, the atheistic community has been on the defensive against an ever more obvious, all too recent creation event. Those who continue to resist are being forced into ever more bizarre metaphysical imaginings. Even if they cannot fully agree on it, if Christians would follow Scripture and cease emphasizing age, and instead focus on the much bigger picture of origins and the implications of a finite expanding universe, they might just make monumental headway in the debate, perhaps even reverse the cultural tendency toward relativism, humanism, and scientism.

 

[church mouse guy]

The lack of emphasis on the earth’s age in Scripture, and resultant lack of a doctrine among early Christians, coupled with the possibilities for ‘yom’ and an open seventh day set the stage. However, the failure of the church to do science right, due to worldly influence and faulty Bible interpretation, along with further philosophic confusion and resultant attacks on the Bible, created caution and some setbacks, but also served as valuable lessons.

Now, opportunity is greater than ever. With the advent of new scientific discoveries which clash with their cherished philosophical paradigm, the atheistic community has been on the defensive against an ever more obvious, all too recent creation event. Those who continue to resist are being forced into ever more bizarre metaphysical imaginings. Even if they cannot fully agree on it, if Christians would follow Scripture and cease emphasizing age, and instead focus on the much bigger picture of origins and the implications of a finite expanding universe, they might just make monumental headway in the debate, perhaps even reverse the cultural tendency toward relativism, humanism, and scientism.

I don't think that you can show that the age issue is not addressed in Scripture. As far as I know the RCC is old earth although the church fathers were not. And I do have a close catholic friend who is YEC.

As for the science issue, the church did not change until the Enlightenment. And the recovery began after WW II when technology allowed for scientific mapping of the ocean floor. Blame poor American education for the fact that Americans are so far behind in science. Old earthers have lost the scientific debate. They have adopted Hindu doctrines so it is a spiritual problem in that they have been blinded by naturalism, perhaps the defining viewpoint of the baby boomers.

 

[rlvaughn]

Point 1: Neither the OT nor the NT makes an issue of the age of the earth or the universe...

This would need to be teased out a lot, but I find some agreement with you as you begin your first point -- if by "issue" you mean a cardinal doctrine and/or a point where believers begin to break fellowship. If someone simply believes the earth is older than I do, I have no issue with that. Several of my mentors in the ministry held the gap theory (and therefore an "old" earth), and, while I don't agree with that idea, I hold them in no less esteem because of that belief. If someone believes the world is here by evolution, even so-called theistic evolution, I do have a problem with that. If by "issue" you mean the Bible absolutely does not address it, I would not agree with that. If a simple historical reading of Genesis 1-11 is correct, then it is built in to what the Bible addresses about it.

 

[rlvaughn]

Will comment on a couple more of these briefly.

Point 4: ‘Yom’ is versatile with more than one definition, even in the first chapter of Genesis.

Yes, and it is telling that we are able to understand that it has more than one definition there.

Point 8: “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”.

Yes, and it is interesting here that in this reference of how time relates to God (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) we have to understand it in terms of normal years and normal days for the statement to make sense. Day in these verses means an ordinary day, which allows the contrast in them. He is not saying “a 1000 years is as a long period of time and a long period of time is as a 1000 years,” but that 1000 X 360 days and 24 hours is of no real consequence to God, since he is outside of time.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 PM Pacific.