wasn't the historical position of the Church was Literal 6 days/Young earth?

[Yeshua1]

I was hoping people would look it up and find out. Silly me. As to the concept, it is a very little, teeny-tiny bit of time. It is the smallest meaningful amount of time calculable and - as far as science can tell - the smallest 'bit' of time possible.

Agedman, I have to agree with you about public debates on cosmology. Normally the Creationist cites the Bible and very little science (and is embarrassingly ignorant of the science involved) while the scientist speaks about science and very little about the Bible (usually not really understanding the Biblical passage). Which ends up with both sides 'talking past' each other - sort of like arguing whether wall paper should be purple or heat insulative.

Pointless except to drum up attention and possible contributions. (Maybe that's why they do?)

And I still agree with Yesh's comment: The Bible means now what it always has meant. Which does not mean humanity has always understood everything correctly.

If anyone during the Earthly life of Jesus should have known who He was, it was the Pharisees. As a group, they studied the scriptures and prophesies more than any others. They memorized long passages, devoted hours to discussion and simply were the most educated Jewish scholars of the time. AND they believed in the 'afterlife'. They were expecting the Messiah, they looked for the Messiah.

And they missed it totally. (At least as a group.) Which is a cautionary tale about many things; all related to 'what the Bible says' as determined by Mom, Dad, Pastor So-and-So or the Reverend Doctor What'sisname. Tradition is what caused the Pharisees to not recognize the Messiah.

jesus said that Adam and Ever were created, not evolved, at the beginning of creation, was he wrong?

Do you see jesus as being wrong, as his science and tech was really poor compared to modern science/tech then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Just in case Yeshua1 is interested the following explains and defines Planck time.

http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/

Since God created out and from nothing, how could there be ANY time constant involved here?

 

[Crabtownboy]

As calvin/luther and almost all others of the past held to that, right?

So ONLY became distrusted when "evolution" was assumed to be scientific fact, and that world wide flood dismessed away?

LOVE what Luther was reuted to write, that he assumed and held to aliteral 6 days of creation, and if one disagreed with that view, premit thte Holy spirit who inspired that to be smarter than you are!

Luther and Calvin most probably believed in a flat earth. The belief in a flat earth was defended with scripture by flat earth believers. They were wrong.

The Hebrew word yom, translated 'day' in Genesis has a number of meanings, one of which is 24 hours. I have found five meanings of the word:

1. A period of light. No time frame so it could be from a second to an indeterminate length of time.

2. a period of 24 hours.

3. a general no length of time given. Could be a second to millions of years.

4. a point of time ... say the Big Bang, or the birth of Christ, etc.

5. A year.

So, it cannot be proven that Genesis means a literal 24 hours day ... not from the Hebrew word 'yom' use din Genesis. Nor can it be proven it was not a 24 hour period.

So it becomes an unproven article of faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

Luther and Calvin most probably believed in a flat earth. The belief in a flat earth was defended with scripture by flat earth believers. They were wrong.

The Hebrew word yom, translated 'day' in Genesis has a number of meanings, one of which is 24 hours. I have found five meanings of the word:

1. A period of light. No time frame so it could be from a second to an indeterminate length of time.

2. a period of 24 hours.

3. a general no length of time given. Could be a second to millions of years.

4. a point of time ... say the Big Bang, or the birth of Christ, etc.

5. A year.

So, it cannot be proven that Genesis means a literal 24 hours day ... not from the Hebrew word 'yom' use din Genesis. Nor can it be proven it was not a 24 hour period.

So it becomes an unproven article of faith.

neither held to a flat earth, and Yom nearly each time used referred toa literal 24 hrs period of time!

those seeking another definition for it do so as they need to support their beliefs of an really old earth!

 

[quantumfaith]

Since God created out and from nothing, how could there be ANY time constant involved here?

Read some good (scholarly) books on time. I suggest "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig.

Most would say (I would be in this group) that time is an emergent created property of space-time and matter. Think how "elusive" the concept of something so innocuous to us as is the concept of time. For me, time and entropy go hand in hand.

Yes, I believe "time" and entropy existed before the event we know of as the Fall.

 

[Dr. Bob]

always have to preface any remark about science as "science falsely so called" since most is simply a religion of atheism (evolution) and scientists as apostles and apologists.

Evolution is not even a "theory" (by definition of the word). It is at best an unprovable "hypothesis".

And Jesus and Apostles spoke of a literal creation, a literal Adam/Eve, etc. I will take GOD'S Word at it over Bill Nye or Carl Sagan

 

[quantumfaith]

always have to preface any remark about science as "science falsely so called" since most is simply a religion of atheism (evolution) and scientists as apostles and apologists.

Evolution is not even a "theory" (by definition of the word). It is at best an unprovable "hypothesis".

And Jesus and Apostles spoke of a literal creation, a literal Adam/Eve, etc. I will take GOD'S Word at it over Bill Nye or Carl Sagan

Dr. Bob I respect you, and your position on the matter, but it is grossly unfair to suggest that science is some "religion of atheism" or anything else for that matter.

It is also incorrect to suggest that evolution is not a theory.

BTW, I would also take the Word over Nye or Sagan or even any theologian for that matter.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure scientists have redefined the word "Theory" for the purposes of the religion of science.

Evolution still remains unproven regardless of how they redefine terms to suit their own purposes.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Dr. Bob I respect you, and your position on the matter, but it is grossly unfair to suggest that science is some "religion of atheism" or anything else for that matter.

There is no proof, therefore the continued existence of the idea is based on mere faith that it will one day be proven, just as Bob said. No offense, QF, you know where I stand on this. I respect your views, but let's call it what it is.

It is also incorrect to suggest that evolution is not a theory.

Calling it a "theory" stretches the definition beyond recognition. A valid hypothesis is the basis for any theory. That hypothesis becomes a working assumption by which a scientist can then gauge what needs to be observed, and begin to catalog what is observed. That involves conducting research that enables the scientist to either disprove or to confirm his assumptions.

There are two problems with labeling evolution a "theory" with any accuracy. First, there are no observable, direct correlations that enable the scientist to test his/her hypothesis. He/she can attempt to locate and test ancient DNA, measure fossilized bones, note similarities of form and structure in known plants and animals, but there is no way to test past hypothesized evolutionary events.

Secondly, the confirming experiments of a theory must point to the proposed hypothesis as the single valid explanation for the events observed. The experiments which evolutionary theorists claim prove their suppositions can be explained by other, equally viable schematics. Evolution, therefore, cannot be legitimized as a valid theory.

At best, it is a requirement of naturalism, which is essentially atheism, as naturalists refuse to admit to the concept of a higher power.

BTW, I would also take the Word over Nye or Sagan or even any theologian for that matter.

Then I would respectfully suggest, as I did earlier today with "humblethinker" on this thread, that you reconsider what you think you believe.

 

[quantumfaith]

There is no proof, therefore the continued existence of the idea is based on mere faith that it will one day be proven, just as Bob said. No offense, QF, you know where I stand on this. I respect your views, but let's call it what it is.Calling it a "theory" stretches the definition beyond recognition. A valid hypothesis is the basis for any theory. That hypothesis becomes a working assumption by which a scientist can then gauge what needs to be observed, and the catalog what is observed. That involves conducting research that enables the scientist to either disprove or to confirm his assumptions.

There are two problems with labeling evolution a "theory" with any accuracy. First, there are no observable, direct correlations the enable the scientist to test his/her hypothesis. He/she can attempt to locate and test ancient DNA, measure fossilized bones, note similarities of form and structure in known plants and animals, but there is no way to test past hypothesized evolutionary events.

Secondly, the confirming experiments of a theory must point to the proposed hypothesis as the single valid explanation for the events observed. The experiments which evolutionary theorists claim prove their suppositions can be explained by other, equally viable schematics. Evolution, therefore, cannot be legitimized as a valid theory.

At best, it is a requirement of naturalism, which is essentially atheism, as naturalists refuse to admit to the concept of a higher power.Then I would respectfully suggest, as I did earlier today with "humblethinker" on this thread, that you reconsider what you think you believe.

I respect you too brother and love you, regardless of our differences on the matter. But I do not think we are on the same page as to the use of "theory".

"JUST" A THEORY?
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.

Now, FTR, I am NOT a naturalist. I believe in the creative work of God (YHWH). I FREELY admit, that I do not know how to assemble all the pieces of evolution, creation and ID. But I do not accept the YEC, 6 24 hr day approach. I do believe that life existed, lived and died before the event we kn ow as the "fall". I also do believe that their is compelling evidence that we humans are part of that equation of "evolution". I look forward to opportunities in sharing things I believe, and presenting as many cases that I have some understanding about (including YEC) with students and unbelievers interested in the conversation and encouraging those to study and seek guidance from God as to where they should land on the issue.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Just so I understand...

always have to preface any remark about science as "science falsely so called" since most is simply a religion of atheism (evolution) and scientists as apostles and apologists.

Being an 'administrator' allows such a person to be rude, disrespectful and intentionally offensive? Is that how you see it?

Were I to say that "YEC supporters are phony, immature Christians 'so called' who value ignorance over reality and hope by staying completely ignorant of reality God will think they are really holy" - would you find that offensive?

That is your example. Are you proud of yourself now?

 

[Revmitchell]

Being an 'administrator' allows such a person to be rude, disrespectful and intentionally offensive?

I'm sorry for a minute there I thought you were talking about your own posts. You probably need to worry about them first.

 

[Yeshua1]

I respect you too brother and love you, regardless of our differences on the matter. But I do not think we are on the same page as to the use of "theory".

"JUST" A THEORY?
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.

Now, FTR, I am NOT a naturalist. I believe in the creative work of God (YHWH). I FREELY admit, that I do not know how to assemble all the pieces of evolution, creation and ID. But I do not accept the YEC, 6 24 hr day approach. I do believe that life existed, lived and died before the event we kn ow as the "fall". I also do believe that their is compelling evidence that we humans are part of that equation of "evolution". I look forward to opportunities in sharing things I believe, and presenting as many cases that I have some understanding about (including YEC) with students and unbelievers interested in the conversation and encouraging those to study and seek guidance from God as to where they should land on the issue.

Evolution within species is proven fact, but transistions and new species evolving out from another seperate one is BAD science, no proof, and what have you got left in the 'theory" when darwin himself claimed if transistions are disproven, evolution falls apart then?

And do you hold to there wasw in the beginning JUST God, no mattre/energy/time/space, just Gos existing eternally?

 

[Yeshua1]

Being an 'administrator' allows such a person to be rude, disrespectful and intentionally offensive? Is that how you see it?

Were I to say that "YEC supporters are phony, immature Christians 'so called' who value ignorance over reality and hope by staying completely ignorant of reality God will think they are really holy" - would you find that offensive?

That is your example. Are you proud of yourself now?

MOST of what passes as factual , and supported theories today in text books is pure "junk science", as in evolutionary theories, extreme aging/dating, global warming, etc!

And MOST scientists do have a naturalistic/anti God mindset, so Dr BOB is Right on!

 

[quantumfaith]

Evolution within species is proven fact, but transistions and new species evolving out from another seperate one is BAD science, no proof, and what have you got left in the 'theory" when darwin himself claimed if transistions are disproven, evolution falls apart then?

And do you hold to there wasw in the beginning JUST God, no mattre/energy/time/space, just Gos existing eternally?

Yeshua, I mean you no disrespect. I suspect that you don't really know bad science when you see it. I suspect that all science which disagrees with your view is by default, according to you ....bad science.

 

[nodak]

Just last night I was reading along in an E.Y. Mullins book and encountered him teaching that we need not fear science. He was making the point science tells us about the physical universe, and the Bible tells us the spiritual point of view.


No matter how loudly the YEC supporters yell, or nasty they get attacking the salvation of OEC people, one thing remains true: either their position is right or wrong. In due time, if the Lord tarries, the truth will out.

If they prove correct, I will happily join their side. Question is, if they are proven wrong will they be willing to change? Meaning it without disrespect, had our dear Lord Himself joined the Nye/Ham debate and told them both they were flat out wrong, that He indeed created the universe and all in it out of nothing but that He chose to do so over a long period of time, with other uses for the earth before humanity, would either of them even listened to Him?

I find myself getting a little testy and just so done with the YEC side these days. Now, I will listen and maybe even learn from them when they present a reasoned and rational explanation of their view, as long as they don't start making that the test of salvation or telling folks if you cannot believe YEC you cannot be saved. In my neck of the woods, that is exactly what is happening. I part company with them right then and there.

If some teen has come to the point of salvation and is ready but just cannot accept YEC, far better to let them come to faith and then let the Holy Spirit guide them in regard to creation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Just last night I was reading along in an E.Y. Mullins book and encountered him teaching that we need not fear science. He was making the point science tells us about the physical universe, and the Bible tells us the spiritual point of view.


No matter how loudly the YEC supporters yell, or nasty they get attacking the salvation of OEC people, one thing remains true: either their position is right or wrong. In due time, if the Lord tarries, the truth will out.

If they prove correct, I will happily join their side. Question is, if they are proven wrong will they be willing to change? Meaning it without disrespect, had our dear Lord Himself joined the Nye/Ham debate and told them both they were flat out wrong, that He indeed created the universe and all in it out of nothing but that He chose to do so over a long period of time, with other uses for the earth before humanity, would either of them even listened to Him?

I find myself getting a little testy and just so done with the YEC side these days. Now, I will listen and maybe even learn from them when they present a reasoned and rational explanation of their view, as long as they don't start making that the test of salvation or telling folks if you cannot believe YEC you cannot be saved. In my neck of the woods, that is exactly what is happening. I part company with them right then and there.

If some teen has come to the point of salvation and is ready but just cannot accept YEC, far better to let them come to faith and then let the Holy Spirit guide them in regard to creation.

Nice Post Nodak.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Nodak, excellent post. Thanks.

 

[percho]

Statement: I am an old earther, however I do believe Gen 1:3-31 were literally six twenty four hour evenings and mornings err 6 days. I find it interesting that on the earth the evening is before the morning. Just thought I would throw that in there.

I have not studied it much but I do not believe in evolution especially relative to man. That being said, I would like to ask a few questions.

Jesus the Son of God who most would say was 100% God and 100% man whatever that means. Post resurrection, presently, today is Jesus still 100% God and 100% man?

Adam who I do not believe evolved but was the first man created by God in God's own image. At the moment of his creation was he all that God intended for him to be? At the moment of his creation was the woman still in the man? At the moment he was created was he created/made a little lower than the angels or did he later become a little lower than the angels? What does that mean a little lower than the angels?

Was the 100% God 100% man, Jesus made/born or whatever a little lower than the angels? Is he today, presently a little lower than the angels?

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29

Will those conformed to the image of his (God's I assume) Son after that conformation still be a little lower than the angels?

Was the first man Adam the living soul created in the image of God created needing to be born again in the image of the, in the fullness of time, the resurrected Son of God, the last Adam in order to be all he could be?

What was God thinking about before he said let there be light? Maybe 1 Peter 1:19.20, Rev. 13:8 Titus 1:2 Romans 8:29 Gal. 4:4? Why? Why was God already writing those scriptures and he had not yet said, Let there be light?

BTW I love the way things are discussed on these forums.

 

[HankD]

Statement: I am an old earther, however I do believe Gen 1:3-31 were literally six twenty four hour evenings and mornings err 6 days. I find it interesting that on the earth the evening is before the morning. Just thought I would throw that in there.

I think it is because in the creation the darkness preceded the light.

I am strongly YEC though I have a science background in my education including Modern Physics and higher Math.

IMO the greatest argument against darwinian evolution is math itself and the probability that everything (matter and life) came by chance out of nothing (The big bang and the Primordial Soup) is a statistical impossibility of pure chance given any length of time considering something called Irreducible Complexity

http://documenta_pdf.jmir.dyndns.org/Dembski_DebatingDesign_2006.pdf#page=370

Now, of course, theistic evolution solves the problem of Irreducible Complexity by introducing God into the evolutionary equation.

It is however IMO an unhappy marriage at many levels so I have decided to wait and leave the YEC problem areas unanswered until some later time when we can ask Him for ourselves.

I have no problem with those who see the Day-Yom in the Genesis as an undefined quantity/quality passage of time model though other passages in scripture fall back on the creation model of the 24 hour solar day model.

e.g.

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.​

HankD​