Featured Time of Creation

A spinning earth has no basis in Scripture.

The motion of the sun and the moon define light and darkness.

Next you are going to say the earth spins as it orbits the sun. So using your own sarcastic logic, how did the earth spin prior to the 4th day, if there was no sun?

All we can say is that half of the earth was in darkness and the other was in light.

But that does not change a 24 hour cycle. The 24 hour cycle was already established on day 1.

You can demand the earth spins, but it would not be because of the sun and moon, any more than a 24 hours depends on a spinning earth or the sun and moon.

There was already light and darkness on the first day.

 

I agree, in Gen 1:4,5 God who spoke the good Light to shine, out of the darkness of Gen 1:2, God called day and it was twelve hours see John 11:9 and I believe from that point on the darkness that God called night was also twelve hours.

Day four brought forth time and seasons and lengthened and shorten the day and night relative to the seasons.

 

From whence does it get it's Light?

It may be 2.5 million light years in our past. God is probably at least that old.

 

The light from the Andromeda Galaxy are from it's stars.
And God has no beginning. Psalms 90:2, . . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

 

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

I would venture to say the day and night from John above is the same as the day and night from Gen 1:3-5. That day and night of John has nothing to do with the sun but is relative to light and darkness of the good and the evil inclusive even of death to life. Lazarus is dead and Jesus is going to raise him to life out of the dead.

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8:12

That is what God divided in Gen 1:4 YLT And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,

IMHO

 

As the end of my post above. I stated, IMHO

It appears to me God separated the good light of himself from the darkness already present on the earth, by time, which I would assume to be twelve hours and then established that by the lights in the firmament and the greater and lesser to show that separation done in verse 4.

I have no idea if there was a time day or a day period before the earth was created/formed.

Relative to your OP

Gen 1:1 states God created the heavens and the earth.

I do not believe God created the earth in the manner stated in Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. I do not believe the Sons of God of Job 38 would have been shouting with joy over, the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I believe the the earth had become, without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I believe 2 Peter 3:5 is a reference to Gen 1:2 and was the result of what is stated in Rev 12:7-9 > And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Now Hebrews 2:14 states that the devil has the power of the death. My question is when and how did the devil come about having the power of the death? At the moment of time say of Gen 1:4,5 did the devil need to be destroyed? How was God going to destroy the devil and his works? Through what means?

And the darkness he called Night. What happens to night? Will the sun always be needed for there to be Light? Rev 21

 

I did directly address that.

Yes there was an equal amount of light and darkness on the first day, and God called that evening and morning, and many still use that to this very day.

Evening and morning is a well defined period of 12 hours of darkness and 12 hours of light. God did not have to be explicit. That has not changed to this very day.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The earth was formed on the third day, after two 24 hour days of equal 12 hours of darkness and 12 hours of light. There was light and there was darkness even without a sun and moon.

That time frame continued on the 2nd day:

"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

This is explicit time frames of light and darkness, because evening was dark, and day was light. How do you think the light and darkness were seperated? By spatial or temporal means? Do you take issue that creation was light for 12 hours and then dark for 12 hours, temporal? Or was half of creation dark and half light for 96 hours, spatial? One could reason that creation still has had no motion at all and still be in accordance with Scripture. It does not take motion to create time.

That may not be how a human would reason it out. But that was God's definition of time. 12 hours of darkness, and 12 hours of light each day for 6 days.

The sun and moon were not necessary to accomplish this. They only governed the light once they were created and set in their courses through the firmament.

 

You reply with human understanding, totally disregarding time, and the Word of God.

God said the light lasted half a day, and the darkness lasted for half a day. These two halves were declared evening and morning by God. That is still a fact to this very day. Time has not changed since the first day when God created light into the darkness and called that time, with the words evening and morning.

It does not matter how you think physics works today. We are talking about Genesis 1 and God's declaration of time with light and darkness divided between morning and evening.

"and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Not sure how much clearer God can get.

 

First, to call those of us that are YEC absurd is offensive. To call our doctrine dangerous goes beyond that.

How exactly do I corrupt the Gospel?

 

I have spoken with quite a few people in my time, of differing sects, denominations, and beliefs, and one common mistake I see is the failure to actually understand what those of differing beliefs actually believe. If we are going to interact responsibly with those who believe differently than we do, is that accomplished by ignoring what they believe?

 

Well did I say that YOU were corrupting the gospel?

There are some here on the BaptistBoard that have jumped the shark.
I have the feeling that 3 or 4 hundred years ago @SavedByGrace would have gladly lit the flames and burned many of us at the stake.
The charge of heresy flows quickly from his fingers in many of his threads.

Rob

 

Yet more RUBBISH

 

Yep.

I do view a six day creation and a young earth as a primary doctrinal position.

So I ask again, how have I corrupted the Gospel through this position?

Secondly, to place the responsibility for "modern scientists" rejecting the Gospel is, to use your own terms—absurd. The more likely cause for this rejection is their training in science, but ultimately they themselves are responsible. There is only One Person with the ability to influence the hearts of men, and that is God. When a man rejects God, it is not because of his knowledge, it is due to his will. The very Ministry of the Holy Spirit is to show truth to the unbeliever, and all knowledge including scientific knowledge, stands outside of that ministry. It is a matter of the unbeliever being shown truth, knowing it to be truth, and accepting or rejecting that truth.

Clearly.

Can I ask you, are your words concerning him/her any better? I know it's easy to get irritated with people (I'm the chief of sinners in this area myself), but it defeats the point of trying to have discussions concerning important doctrinal matters when we flub the basics, doesn't it? You know, bring no offense to any man, love thy neighbor, do unto others ...

And? Part and parcel of a Doctrinal Discussion Forum, right? Outside of cults, no one really agrees about everything. All it takes is to disagree on one point and—Boom!—we become heretics in the eyes of those we once thought to be friends.

In regards to the original issue, the fact that am a YEC is due to my study of both the Bible and the arguments of OEC. I've yet to see a valid argument from their side to warrant disregarding some very basic teachings of Scripture. The jig that's danced to deny the Creation account falls short, and until I see a valid argument, I will continue to be YEC.

I would also point out that this position is for the larger part unrelated to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reason being, the Gospel of Christ was a mystery, unrevealed truth until the coming of the Comforter. How someone could "corrupt the Gospel message" because they "make a primary doctrine" out of a nearly 6,000 year old Earth, well, I'm curious to see how you substantiate your charge.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Keep in mind Who it is verifying this aspect of the discussion:

Exodus 20:1
1 And God spake all these words, saying,


God bless.

 

Well, yeah, I guess if you really consider it a primary doctrine I have indirectly accused you of corrupting the gospel.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:
(1) I consider Primary Doctrines to include those essential to the Christian faith, such as:

• the Trinity,
• the deity of Christ,
• the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ,
• the atoning work of Christ on the cross,
• salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone

(2) I define "corrupt" as:

• to pollute or contaminate by adding a non-essential element
• to alter, or change

(3) I think the response deserves a separate thread.
How shall WE compose its title?

I suggest:

• Is a Young Earth Creationism a Primary Doctrine?
• Is a Six, 24-hour Creation days an essential Christian Doctrine?
• A 6000 y.o. earth is an essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity

Or perhaps a more general title:

• Is Young Earth creationism an essential part of the gospel message?
• Does Young-Earth Creationism corrupt the Gospel?

.........if you like the last title you will need to define what the Gospel message is.

...or you may suggest another title of your own making.​

Allow me a few days to compose a succinct, polite response.

Brother in Christ

Rob