# Creation question.....



## BlackCalvinist

Hey folks!

Ran across an interesting view and wanted a little feedback on it.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 

3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. 

6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. 

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 

11 And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. 

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so.

The view is that until the fourth day, we cannot say that the first three days were 24-hour days. They were 'whatever God decided they would be' in length up to that time. The text does not say.

Reason being - we did not have 24-hour measurements for days, seasons and years until the fourth day (v. 14). 

This view takes Gen. 1 literally and does not subscribe to the 'framework' viewpoint or anything.... just disagrees on the length of the first three days based on the text.

I'm not finding anything heretical in these that would contradict the scriptures....

Thoughts ?

(pardon me if this one's been covered)


----------



## Grymir

With the inclusion of evening and morning from day 1, such a stand would not work. If this idea comes from one who is trying to fit millions of years into the biblical framework, I would ignore what this person says.

Real young earth creationist do not say the days have to be exactly 24-hour periods as we measure time today. But they could have a little variation. With the plants created on day 3 and the sun on day 4, they could not live long without the sun. So if the 24 days started on day 4, what would happen to the plants if the previous days were longer?

That's one of the reasons why if you adhere to the days being about 24 hr periods (which I do!), you take them all. Evening and Morning are designations used by God on all the days.

Now as to heretical, that's another question. I'm just showing that their thinking is flawed on this.


----------



## Eoghan

I agree with Grymil, this is reading into the text more than is there! This is a single passage and "morning and evening" is repeated throughout. Scripture beinmg its own interpreter I would not look further than a few verses down to understand the meaning.

Our seven day week is based on the creation week for crying out loud. As for not finding anything unbiblical or heretical - do you recal the words of our Lord in LK 10:26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" This refers to two things 

1. the scripture passage

2. the hermeneutic employed in interpreting it

You must be careful not only of the translation of scripture (in so far as you can) but also the hermeneutic principles you bring to bear in it's interpretation. There are many religions which will accept the Bible but look at their hermeneutic principles. Roman Catholics for example look at scripture as we do, i.e. the same basic text, but use reading glasses called "church tradition". 

This is an imposition on the plain reading of the text. I would recommend a good book on hermeneutics such as Louis Berkhof's "Principles of Biblical Interpretation". 

The text is fine the hermeneutics NOT! I would be surprised if this is the only "unusual" interpretation from your source. What for example do they (he/she) make of original sin, the fall and federal headship in Adam?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Playing devil's advocate for a moment (and I've had this same discussion with this person already):



Grymir said:


> With the inclusion of evening and morning from day 1, such a stand would not work.



That still ignores v. 14 and 15 which say that the things used to measure days, years, seasons, etc.... were not put in place until day 4. No further 'imposition' of anything on the text other than simply reading what it says. In contrast, your reading backwards of a 24-hour day as we know _yom_ definitely means from the fourth day forward (hope I explained that right).



> If this idea comes from one who is trying to fit millions of years into the biblical framework, I would ignore what this person says.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real young earth creationist do not say the days have to be exactly 24-hour periods as we measure time today. But they could have a little variation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This person has no problem with that view. As he has told me "Each 'day' could have been a second, fifteen minutes or a year - whenever God said 'Okay, it's morning....Okay, it's evening - 1st day." This person definitely believes that every day from Day 4 forward are literal 24-hour days. The days prior to that - uncertain and cannot be determined from the text. They could've been SHORTER than 24 hours OR LONGER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the plants created on day 3 and the sun on day 4, they could not live long without the sun. So if the 24 days started on day 4, what would happen to the plants if the previous days were longer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting that the fall had not happened yet, so nothing in creation was subject to decay yet...so the plants would not be subject to decay without the sun (remember, though - there was 'light'....so they may have gotten their sustenance from the existing 'light' v. 3).
> 
> Again, I've had this same discussion with this person, so I've taken time to go through their argument quite a bit to make sure I understand it. I asked many of the same questions and had most of the same objections, so I'm just seeing what your responses would have been.
> 
> Hope that helps. Additional feedback welcome.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grymir

Hi BlackCalvinist! Feel free to play devil's advocate. I enjoy such talks. This person is one who I'd like to sit down with and spend some time talking to them over a cup or 2 or 5 of coffee. 

His idea is something I've not heard of before, so I would sit down and question him to find out all the nuances.

Right after my conversion, I worked at a place where the manager was a catholic old-earther. Each day I would bring in some tidbit that I picked up somewhere, we would discuss it, and, as usually happened that early in my informative development, I would sulk home to find out the answers to the daily dilemma. This went on for over a year, and our talks became the stuff of legend at work. In the final analysis however, he could not agree with the young earth idea because he was a college trained biologist, and it would mean repudiating what he learned at college. I also found out later from him that his wife was a Buddhist, and it would also cause problems in his marriage. (he did end up divorced however)

But without his input and inquires, I'd wouldn't be as well trained in the subject as I am now. This person sounds like that person to me.

It's hard to dissect, but I will make a few observations.

you quoted him as saying - "That still ignores v. 14 and 15 which say that the things used to measure days, years, seasons, etc.... were not put in place until day 4. No further 'imposition' of anything on the text other than simply reading what it says. In contrast, your reading backwards of a 24-hour day as we know yom definitely means from the fourth day forward (hope I explained that right)." Yes, you explained it right. But it's not an imposition on the text. There are other passages in the Bible that refer to this as a week. That's why the 'whole council of God' is so important. Less plainer passages are made clearer by others. I wouldn't use that approach, however, I would talk about the evening and morning being a consistent reading in scripture, not a backwards reading.

The part about the fall not happening yet is irrelevant. Plants need a day/night cycle to survive. They could not have survived on just a light cycle. The 'whose seed was in itself, after it's own kind' is showing that plants had a life cycle before the fall of some kind. (Animals and humans die, but plants don't have a soul.) The decay that young earthers talk about is the 2nd Law of Thermal dynamics, which did happen after the fall. The decay of rotten timber is not necessarily post fall. (Water alone could cause plants to 'decay' and reinvigorate the soil).

But I wouldn't talk about these science reasons with this person. I spend alot of time talking to people of differing religious beliefs and worldviews. Just in the little bit you told me of what he said, a whole bunch of red flags went up. Which would lead me to believe this view of scripture is for a differing reason than what he is saying verbally. Usually I see these red flags when someone is trying to integrate modern science theories with what they think the Bible is saying. And once you learn how easy modern science theories can be dis-proven, you have to wonder why people hold to them. (I would spend some time seeing which ones he is holding and which ones he is willing to let go of. Another pot of coffee discussion.)

It will probably come down to their view of scripture. i.e., is this God telling us what happened, or is it man writting about the event (even 'inpired' writing about the event is still man centered). The bible is God's word. Like he dictated it to us word for word.

I would bet good money that something else is going on, that there is something or some reason behind what he is saying. If he says no and/or gets mad, you can be sure of it.

Keep me posted, I'd like to hear more - Tim


----------



## Grymir

P.S. I'm also assuming that he's saying the first 3 days were longer periods of time, If he's not, then the whole point is moot. Because why make a distinction unless you are trying to say something that the Bible doesn't. (Hint, that was one of the red flags I was talking about)


----------



## BJClark

Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...

So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..

I had to answer a question in Science one year explaining how the earth could show such an old age if it is only a few thousand years (using Biblical references)..and I used an arguement about the one day being as a thousand years..if one day is as a thousand years, and there have been X number of days that would be X number of thousands of years that have past..making the earth old..the professor was actually intrigued by my response, as it was one she hadn't heard before but it made her look up the verses I refered to. And when we include the sudden flood, and receeding waters that too would effect what the age of the earth appears to be..

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


----------



## Grymir

or a thousand years is one day. It's nice that your science teacher was impressed. Get that weggie of truth goin.

But as a reason for applying modern theories to the Bible, it's lame. (sorry, I don't mean to insult. I'm not.) Its just I hear that line sooooo much I wanna barfth. Because it says a thousand years is one day too. People never consider that in the answer. The phrase is actually showing that God is outside our space-time continuum.


----------



## Zenas

What makes "yom" mean an indistinguishable amount of time for the first 3 days, yet for the others, "yom" means 24-hour periods?


----------



## DMcFadden

BJClark said:


> Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...
> 
> So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..
> 
> 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



1. The 2 Peter 3 quote is truncated. Look at the whole verse and the context. It gives no quarter for the use to which old agers put it in Genesis.

2. The contextual literary cues in Genesis 1 militate against an indefinite period of time.
a. "yom" is defined in its two literal senses when it appears first in the Bible (i.e., the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle).
b. the use of the markers "evening" and "morning" denote a straight forward kind of day.
c. the presence of the terms "first day," "second day," etc. denote ordinary days.

3. The institution of the sabbath in Exodus 20 depends upon a literal reading of Genesis 1. Attempting to differentiate the earlier days from the later days only surfaces from the side of those desperately attempting to find 3.5 billion "missing" years.


----------



## Eoghan

BJClark said:


> Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...
> QUOTE]
> 
> That is SO not true! This again comes back to hermeneutics. Read the passage in context - this is about God's patience - not a mathematical formula to be applied to the Old Testament.
> 
> Does God have feathers?
> 
> PS 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers,
> and under his wings you will find refuge;
> his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
> 
> Of course not this passage alludes to the way chicks seek refuge under the mother hen. For Isaac Asimov however it does indeed prove God has feathers


----------



## mark

HI Black Calvinist.
I have found it helpful that the sun and moon are not required for a 24 hour period for days 1-3, rather, what is required is a) light, created on day one, and b) a revolving earth, already existent, though "formless and void" but becoming less so for days 2 and 3 through the action of creation. 

Have you ever check out Reformed Blacks of America? Good stuff.


----------



## AV1611

If I were you I would have a read of this. 

I don't think that the creation account should be taken chronologically:

*Day 1:* Let there be light (1:3). 
*Day 4:* Let there be lights (1:14).

*Day 2: *Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6). 
*Day 5:* Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20). 

*Day 3:* Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11). 
*Day 6: *Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).

As Futato notes:

Genesis 1-2 proclaims that YHWH, the God of Israel, is the Lord of the rain, the resultant vegetation, and life. This central aspect of the message of Genesis 1-2 is embedded in the structure of the accounts. Why the two-fold focus on vegetation and the people that live on that vegetation? Why even bring into consideration the lack of vegetation owing to a lack of rain? Is this simply geographical decoration? No, for the Book of Genesis serves as the prologue to the history of Israel. Genesis makes the point that the God of the nation of Israel is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12-50), and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Creator of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1-11). The God of Israel is the Creator. From the beginning the God of Israel, not Baal, has been the provider of the rain that is the pre-requisite of life. YHWH God of Israel has been the Lord of the rain from the beginning!​


----------



## BobVigneault

I don't see in those verses where it says that beginning with day four they were 24 hour periods. You are implying. 

Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

BobVigneault said:


> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.



This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.


----------



## BobVigneault

OK Mason, granted, but can you tell me why there is a need for a debate aside from fitting an evolutionary old earth theory. Why not debate how many days Jesus body lay in the tomb or how many days Jonah was in the great fish or how many days Joshua marched around Jericho. Why? Why is there a debate?


----------



## AV1611

BobVigneault said:


> Why is there a debate?



There is great debate because the text itself is not clear. As Mason has pointed out, Augustine, to which we could add a number of Greek Fathers, saw the creation account for what it was, an account of creation. It is not a scientific treatise. We need to look at the story behind the account, not least its relation with Ancient Near East creation accounts as regards Mythopoetic language and thought forms. Further, we need to take into account the work of redactors.

E.g. _God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament_ by John Day as well as Gunkel's _Creation And Chaos in the Primeval Era And the Eschaton_


----------



## BobVigneault

"And there was evening and there was morning, the first 'yom'."

Man, that is clear teaching unless you speak in the rarified and hyper-abstruse language of the lawyer, the theologian, the rhetoricist. Moses said 'day'. Day means day. My four year old knows what a day is. None of the days in those verses mention 24 hours but 'yom' means 24 hours. Is it clear that Jonah was in the great fish for 3 24-hour periods or is that scripture unclear?


----------



## AV1611

BobVigneault said:


> "And there was evening and there was morning, the first 'yom'."
> 
> Man, that is clear teaching unless you speak in the rarified and hyper-abstruse language of the lawyer, the theologian, the rhetoricist. Moses said 'day'. Day means day. My four year old knows what a day is. None of the days in those verses mention 24 hours but 'yom' means 24 hours. Is it clear that Jonah was in the great fish for 3 24-hour periods or is that scripture unclear?



Indeed yom means day. But that is not the issue. Look at the structure of the prose of Genesis 1 and note the parallels between days 1 & 4; 2 & 5; 3 & 6:

*Day 1:* Let there be light (1:3).
*Day 4:* Let there be lights (1:14).

*Day 2:* Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
*Day 5:* Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).

*Day 3:* Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
*Day 6:* Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).​
Look at each section individually:

*Day 1:* Let there be light (1:3).
*Day 2:* Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
*Day 3:* Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).​
Ends with vegetation.

*Day 4:* Let there be lights (1:14).
*Day 5:* Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).
*Day 6:* Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).​
Ends with man. Is this important? Yes when you consider the gods of Israel's neighbours - Canaanite Baal and Babylonian Marduk.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
Click to expand...


True, but Augustine's reasons were different. He was not embarrassed by recent scientific findings. He didn't like the 6/24 position because he really didn't like time. Being a neo-platonist, he saw time as messy and didn't want God to get messy. So he believed God created all at once so he wouldn't have to deal with time.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

BobVigneault said:


> "And there was evening and there was morning, the first 'yom'."
> 
> Man, that is clear teaching unless you speak in the rarified and hyper-abstruse language of the lawyer, the theologian, the rhetoricist. Moses said 'day'. Day means day. My four year old knows what a day is.  None of the days in those verses mention 24 hours but 'yom' means 24 hours. Is it clear that Jonah was in the great fish for 3 24-hour periods or is that scripture unclear?



Genesis 2:4 - "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (NKJV)

So, if you take the same word (yom), it implies all of creation was made in the same 24 hour period, if you're going to be consistent. I agree with AV1611: the Resurrection clearly occurred within 3 days, as did the Jonah episode, based on the narrative and common sense. In terms of time, the Creation account is anything but clear, especially compared to historical narratives of Jonah and the Resurrection. 

I certainly understand your point that we shouldn't change our understanding or interpretation of Scripture to make it more compatible with a deeply flawed scientific theory. But in this case I think there is very legitimate basis for an "Old Earth" view of the Creation account.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but Augustine's reasons were different. He was not embarrassed by recent scientific findings. He didn't like the 6/24 position because he really didn't like time. Being a neo-platonist, he saw time as messy and didn't want God to get messy. So he believed God created all at once so he wouldn't have to deal with time.
Click to expand...


I agree, but the point is that the exact chronology of the Genesis account has always been debated, and is not a "new" idea in response to evolutionary theory. Great scholars and theologians have argued this issue since as early as the 2nd century BC, so it isn't simply a reactionary theory new to 20th and 21st century Christianity.


----------



## BobVigneault

Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.

I'm missing something. I'm slow.


----------



## BobVigneault

Why is there a need for an old earth interpretation of scripture?

Stop using Augustine or I will start a debate about the eucharist and transubstantiation. (Kidding)

Thanks Jacob for giving a better perspective to Augustine's agenda.


----------



## AV1611

BobVigneault said:


> Thank you for laying those verse out like that. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.



I think that you are missing the point, whether _yom_ means 24 hours is wholly irrelevant to the message of Genesis 1-2. The sequence is thematic (and polemical) not chronological. Oh, and I agree _yom_ does mean 24 hours or at least thereabouts.

Could I point you to Bruce K. Waltke's _Genesis: A Commentary_.


----------



## BobVigneault

I appreciate the recommendation but until someone can stimulate some real doubt in my mind that the plain teaching of scripture is anything other than a 6 24-hour day chronology then I'll stick with scripture.


----------



## AV1611

BobVigneault said:


> I appreciate the recommendation but until someone can stimulate some real doubt in my mind that the plain teaching of scripture is anything other than a 6 24-hour day chronology then I'll stick with scripture.



See PM.


----------



## A5pointer

The yom argument is tiring. Of course Yom means 24 hours if used literally but if used figuratively the bets are off. That of course is the real question.


----------



## RamistThomist

then there is also the predominant use of the _waw_. It almost always, except in a handful of obvious cases in the psalms, refers to narrative chronology. And the waw is used more in the first 2 chapters of Genesis than anywhere else in Scripture.

I can grant a certain poetic structure to Genesis. That proves nothing. I think the whole Bible is poetic (even _poeisis_ ). The evidence by means of _waw_ and _yom_ is simply overwhelming.


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> And the waw is used more in the first 2 chapters of Genesis than anywhere else in Scripture.



Mark Futato (Spring 1998). "Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3". _Westminster Theological Journal_ 60 (1): pp. 1-21. 

Hasel, G. F. “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels,” _Andrews University Seminary Studies_ 10 (1972) 1-20. 

There are loads of articles here.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the waw is used more in the first 2 chapters of Genesis than anywhere else in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Futato (Spring 1998). "Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3". _Westminster Theological Journal_ 60 (1): pp. 1-21.
> 
> There are loads of articles here.
> 
> Hasel, G. F. “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels,” _Andrews University Seminary Studies_ 10 (1972) 1-20.
> 
> Hyers, M. Conrad. “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic Yes: Scientific No,” _Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation_ 36.4 (1984) 208-15.
Click to expand...


I refuse to do "copy/paste" theology and I refuse to do "footnote refutation." I can link to a number of Jim Jordan articles and Doug Kelly books and that should end the day.

Biblical Horizons » 9-12: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 3

Biblical Horizons » 9-11: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 2

Biblical Horizons » 9-10: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 1

Refuting Kline, part one.

Refuting Kline, part 2

How do you like them apples?

If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.


----------



## greenbaggins

ColdSilverMoon said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
Click to expand...


But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."
Click to expand...


Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!


----------



## CDM

ColdSilverMoon said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
Click to expand...


Where are all the knock-down drag-out theological debates pre-Darwin? Who and where are these sources of all the Old earth arguments? I may be wrong, but I have searched and found none. And Augustine commenting on time in Genesis does not fit the criteria.

And, sure, you can "repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist". But the question is "why"? Who was arguing that Genesis did not teach 6 - 24 hour solar days pre-Darwin?


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.



You raised grammatical considerations which Futato deals with in his article. I agree that there are problems with Klines analysis that is why I accept Futato's with whom Jordan has not interacted (as I am aware). Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.

By way of background: Bruce Waltke (Professor of Old Testament); Mark Futato (Professor of Old Testament); Meredith Kline (Professor of Old Testament); and, James Jordan (Th.M.)


----------



## A5pointer

At the risk of ruffleing feathers, I see the debate as unecessary. I do not think we can know how long it took. However we can agree that the purpose of the account as has been said was to show that Yahweh unlike the mesopotamian gods created all from nothing and rested. Some mesopotamian gods were thought to be in constant struggle with the creation even having to recreate at times.


----------



## BobVigneault

AV1611 said:


> Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.



You see, here's where I have to bow out. All I have is the rather regular and plain faculties of understanding. God has revealed himself in a manner that takes into account the fact that I am a sea slug compared to his great mind.

However, this is one of those many cases where there are other sea slugs who have _the 'gnosis'_, Kline, Jordan, et al., who can shroud the plain understanding with layers and layers of esoteric words and phrases and frame works - the gnosis.

Answering the original post - God created the world in 6 days as commonly understood by a hebrew slave, a hebrew king and a country boy from Vermont. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.


----------



## AV1611

A5pointer said:


> At the risk of ruffleing feathers, I see the debate as unecessary. I do not think we can know how long it took. However we can agree that the purpose of the account as has been said was to show that Yahweh unlike the mesopotamian gods created all from nothing and rested. Some mesopotamian gods were thought to be in constant struggle with the creation even having to recreate at times.



I agree with you completely.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You raised grammatical considerations which Futato deals with in his article. I agree that there are problems with Klines analysis that is why I accept Futato's with whom Jordan has not interacted (as I am aware). Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.
Click to expand...


The bible gives its own cosmology. I believe that imposing a foreign hermeneutical structure on the Bible, such as ANE, is just as dangerous as NT Wright imposing Second Temple Judaism.



> By way of background: Bruce Waltke (Professor of Old Testament); Mark Futato (Professor of Old Testament); Meredith Kline (Professor of Old Testament); and, James Jordan (Th.M.)



So what? Is truth determined by degrees? Are we now elitists?


----------



## Poimen

Ivanhoe said:


> If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.


----------



## RamistThomist

Oh wait,

Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> The bible gives its own cosmology.



Indeed but it is against the backdrop of ANE cosmologies. When Moses was writing the main enemy was Canaanite Baalism and when the redactors were writing the main enemy was Babylonian Marduk. This mythopeotic practice can also be found in the Psalter (see here). 



Ivanhoe said:


> So what? Is truth determined by degrees? Are we now elitists?



What it demonstrates is that on one side we find professors of Old Testament who have written Hebrew grammars and are well versed in scholarly works and engaged in research into these issues against whom you pit James Jordan who is who precisely?


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> Oh wait,
> 
> Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.



A PhD in what?


----------



## Ravens

Richard, let me preface this by saying that any of the emotional frustration you may detect is not directed at you. I have great respect (not lip-service, it is sincere) for your desire to please the Lord (even when you hold a minority position), and myself agree with may of your distinctives. That being said, I think you are very wrong here, but we are all wrong on some things, and I trust that your Lord will give you light when and how He chooses; and that holds true for all of us. Anyhow.

For my part, I find it tedious when people begin referring to ANE cosmologies and cosmogonies, polemics, etc. A few years ago I listened to Glenn Beck quite a bit; I always found it to be highly funny when he would pull the duct tape and talk about taping up his head to hold it together. That is my reaction to most of these discussions (in general), and to the polemical language (to be specific).

If I had the I.Q., time, and resources, I would like to comb through older commentaries on Genesis and Exodus and see how many times it mentioned "polemics" against the pagan gods of other cultures. I could be woefully mistaken, but I wager that the references were few and far between, if, indeed, there are any at all. My hunch (and someone feel free to correct me) is that this stuff started out in the liberal tradition, and was later picked up by conservative scholars for some reason or another.

To shift gears: In my mind, discussions on cosmology and cosmogony are really quite chicken-and-the-egg, when all is said and done. Since some, if not many, divines argued that Hebrew was the Edenic tongue, who is to say that Tiamat was not a garbled recollection of an oral tradition concerning the _tehom_? Does the fact that clay tablets existed north of Israel prior to the written records of the Old Testament really, in any way whatsoever, prove or establish that there were not oral and or written traditions in Israel of the true event, and that the Sumerian-Assyrian-Babylonian stories weren't the garbled ones? The _Enuma Elish_ seems to be the garbled version, and not the Old Testament. 

Furthermore, in my mind these discussions usually assume, tacitly, an evolutionary view of history. Somehow all of these things that actually function to prove the Deluge, and a common descent from Noah are flipped around on their head, and used to argue against the Divine origin or authority of the Oracles of God. When I read the _Enuma Elish_, I think, "Ya' know, this is exactly the kind of stuff that one would expect to find in the world's most ancient civilization, that, Biblically, must have had some cultural memory of Noah and the Deluge."

Also, the "cosmogonic" similarities are extensive, so why confine it to the ANE? Read the Poetic Edda. Ymir's skull becomes the Dome of the Sky. The Iroquois seem to say that the earth was all watery chaos, until mud was brought up from the bottom to form the earth. The Poetic Edda also speaks of the Earth rising out of the sea. The Japanese myths, if I remember, speak of a watery world in the beginning, as do many others. So if these watery legends are actually global, and not just local, then a: Why bother seeking an origin in the ANE, and b: you would think it would fill the Christian with some confidence, seeing as how the Biblical records trace all the rivulets of red, yellow, black, and white, back to the Fount of Noah, from whom they could have learned about creation and the Deluge.

Anyhow, one thing that is very _telling_ to me (and this is a point that is rarely made on the PB, I think), is that attitude and approach taken by all of the respective positions towards the rest of Genesis 1-11.

This might be a rather broad stroke, but for my part, YEC people are more willing to take the rest of Genesis very literally, i.e., "If there was a global flood, shouldn't we find evidence thereof?" "If the Bible is God's inspired word, and the genealogies in Genesis _do not allow_ for chronological gaps, then doesn't Genesis more or less tell us how long human beings have been around, when the Flood took place, etc., and shouldn't we adjust world history, be it from Manetho or from Yale, accordingly?" 

Very few of those who take a Framework or Day-Age view ever seek to lay out a philosophy of history and historical analysis that makes sense of both the apparent data of history and science and the Biblical record. For my part, and I might be wrong, I think that most Frameworkers and Day-Agers are implicitly and subconsciously embarrassed by all of the talk about Cain, Genesis genealogies, Nimrod, Shinar, Babel, etc. That's why they never really emphasize defending the Biblical accounts. 

When one position tends to lead to a wholesale defense of Biblical veracity and history in general, and the other position tends to lead to a "We won't talk about if you don't talk about it; it's true, but let's not actually try to reconcile Gen. 1-11 with world history, at least not in print and public...", then that gives me a clear indication of which side is standing in the right, and which side is standing in the fog.


----------



## Poimen

First of all, I don't think that understanding Genesis 1 as some kind of Caananite diatribe is necessarily antithetical to the chronological, solar day view. That hasn't been demonstrated and until it is, will remain a red herring (not intentionally however). 

Second, the structure that Richard (aka AV1611) outlines for us regarding the days also does not necessitate a rejection of the chronological, solar day view. Others (such as Bavinck) also point out the progression of the days as they find fulfillment in the apogee of creation (man) and his intended goal (Sabbath rest) as indicative of a clear chronological perspective.

In the end Bob V's objection cannot be overthrown. Where in the text, outside of naturalist presuppositions, can it be demonstrated that the days were not intended to teach a chronological, solar view? We can rearrange them all we want, but until we demonstrate clear warrant from the text aside from speculation, we are left with the ordinary view. 

And if it could be (plausibly) demonstrated, how would one explain this to the ordinary man of Moses time, let alone the man in the pew today? 

I think any other view does violence to the perspicuity of scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait,
> 
> Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A PhD in what?
Click to expand...


I don't know. Table-tennis, probably. I understand the question. I think you want to imply the following: "A PhD is nice, sure, but unless he has a PhD in Old testament/Hebrew, then he must take a backseat to the other scholars." 

I don't buy that logic for one minute. Luther overthrew the Roman priesthood. What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist. 

Kelly's PhD is probably in systematic theology, which would make him an ideal polemicist. A systematician would have a broader understanding of presuppositions (including Kline's dualistic, quasi-neo Platonic framework) going into the debate.


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist.



The Book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago in a culture that we are ignorant of. Language reflects culture hence the language that reflects a culture that we are ignorant of is very difficult to comprehend. Moses, who was living in this culture, was writing to Israel, an infant nation. On all sides of this emerging nation in the Ancient Near East, were nations with their own gods, their own culture, their own languages. The biggest threat to Israelite religion was the Baalism of the Canaanites. This was the god of the rain and fertility (read vegetation). So when set in this historic context the fact that the creation account declares YHWH to be the source of vegetation and humankind, Moses has launched a polemical attack upon the gods of Israel's neighbours. The six days then are seen to be thematic (days 1-3 and 4-6) afterwhich God rests his work is done. 

Now does that rule out six creation days? Well, is the account chronological? No. Ok, so what? Further, what is the significance that _yom_ has been used? These are still on going thoughts in my mind. Is it science? No. So then is it myth, poetry, narrative etc?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Ivanhoe said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravens

Brother Richard,

There was a critical piece of reasoning which was missing in your post. You talked about the infancy of the nation of Israel, and the Baalism of the Caananites, and more or less made a colossal jump to, "So, when Moses writes, he is writing polemic..." The one does not establish or necessitate the other.

Here is another problem that I have with the whole concept and language of reading "polemics" into the Scriptures: Paganism has gods for everything. Athens was a famous example of that; I'm sure we've all heard the famous quote that it was easier to find a god in Athens than a mortal. They even covered their bases by honoring "the unknown God."

You can see the same thing in Hinduism. I am not even quite sure if there is an "official tally" of the number of Hindu deities, but I have heard it reaches into the thousands. The Norse myths of the ocean couldn't even contain all of the gods that supposedly had power over the sea: Njord, Ran, AEgir; and let's throw Jormungandr in to boot. Point being, what Chesterton said about the Greeks applies, in general, to all pagans: "They couldn't see the trees for the dryads [not verbatim]." 

Why do I bring that up? Because the overflowing polytheism of darkened nations allows _any_ text to be turned into a "polemic". I don't often like when people flippantly mention our Lord in order to prove a rather trite or academic point, but I don't see any other way around making my point. So let me show you what polytheism, coupled with a "Let's Find a Polemic" approach, makes possible. 

Here's a sample commentary from 2014:

"The authors and redactors of the documents that eventually came to be collected in what was formerly called the "New Testament" were writing, primarily, to people of low socio-economic status, surrounded and beleaguered on all sides by the impressive majesty of the Roman empire. The claims that the faith community later placed back into the mouth of Chr*st (we should not associate these claims, of course, with the historical Y'shua ben Yosef) clearly clashed with the prevailing polytheism of Imperial Rome."

"Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient religion of the Greco-Roman pantheon was now being superseded by mystery cults and Emperor worship, the august pantheon of antiquity still exerted quite a sway in the minds of the commoners. We must also keep in mind that the documents of what would later be styled the "New Testament" were written to people of a different culture, who spoke a different language. Ergo, we must take off our lenses of preunderstanding and see these ancient texts in a way that the average proselyte or catechumen would have understood them."

"When we approach the texts in this fashion, we see clear traces of early proto-Christian polemic against the ancient Roman triad of gods (namely, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto) woven throughout the gospel narratives. Why does the gospel record numerous examples of (1) Chr*st walking on the water, (2) Chr*st calming the wind and the waves on the way to free the Gadarene epileptic, along with concomitant gloss of the "believing community" that "even the wind and the waves obey him", (3) Chr*st calling up a fish to pay taxes for Peter, (4) Chr*st enabling a miraculous catch of fish, (5) et al. Clearly these are to be understood in the prevailing cultural context of the time, and we see clearly that a polemic is being made that Chr*st is L*rd of the Waves and King of the Sea, and not Neptune."

"This insightful approach yields further results. Now we understand that when Chr*st called back Lazarus from the grave, or the text records saints rising after a great earthquake following the crucifixion, or, if we may, Chr*st himself rising from the earth and from the dead, we clearly see that a polemic is made against Pluto. The New Testament author-redactors are showing that the Christian G*d, and not Pluto, is the true L*rd of life and death."

"Lastly, this gives a profound and decisive meaning to the ascension. What is the ascension, but a grand exclamation point punctuating the end of the Chr*st-story? How does it do so? Namely, in one decisive stroke, as it were, it wrests power from the high god of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, by showing that, indeed, Chr*st is L*rd of the Skies. That the early church spoke of him being enthroned at the right hand of the F*ther only establishes and seals this fact."

"What a pity that the assured results of higher-critical scholarship were not known to the church as it formulated some of the distinctive dogmas that we now know to be muddle-headed and rather mistaken...."

Anyhow, that fictional account, I believe, makes my point rather well. Namely, when pagans have a "god" for everything, then "everything" can be turned into a polemic. Polemics against rock gods, sky gods, fire gods, fish gods, etc. There is no logical chain of reasoning that necessitates any of it, and the commentary I just provided, in my opinion, is* 100%* as plausible as the so-called Baal polemic.


----------



## Ravens

BTW, I wasn't exactly sure whether I violated the 3rd commandment in that "mock" commentary. I don't know any other way to make my point as effectively. If anyone feels that I did, feel free to post or PM, and I'll take it down.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago in a culture that we are ignorant of. Language reflects culture hence the language that reflects a culture that we are ignorant of is very difficult to comprehend. Moses, who was living in this culture, was writing to Israel, an infant nation. On all sides of this emerging nation in the Ancient Near East, were nations with their own gods, their own culture, their own languages. The biggest threat to Israelite religion was the Baalism of the Canaanites. This was the god of the rain and fertility (read vegetation). So when set in this historic context the fact that the creation account declares YHWH to be the source of vegetation and humankind, Moses has launched a polemical attack upon the gods of Israel's neighbours. The six days then are seen to be thematic (days 1-3 and 4-6) afterwhich God rests his work is done.
> 
> Now does that rule out six creation days? Well, is the account chronological? No. Ok, so what? Further, what is the significance that _yom_ has been used? These are still on going thoughts in my mind. Is it science? No. So then is it myth, poetry, narrative etc?
Click to expand...


How does that in anyway address my post?

On second thought, it perfectly illustrates what I mean by the priesthood of the scholar (and I know Hebrew and ANE for what its worth). 

At the end of the day I am tempted to ask whether all of this would be going through the mind of the ancient Hebrew. but taht isn't a fair question to ask. We really can't know that. But we can also note its absence from most of ancient, medieval, and modern Christian discussions of creation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point. I never said Augustine had an old earth view. I said he viewed the Genesis 1 chronology as metaphorical rather than literal. My post was in response to Bob V, who claimed that the only reason not to believe in 6 24 hr days is to accommodate evolutionary theory. My point in bringing up Augstine is that the exact chronology of Genesis 1 has always been debated. Other pre-Darwin theologians have also questioned the literal 24 hr period. William Perkins, a 16th century Puritan, argued that creation took place in "six distinct spaces of time" rather than 6 actual day-night rotations. And as I mentioned in my first post, Calvin at least acknowledged there was room for debate on the issue, though he believed the literal 24-hr period view. So the debate over the Genesis 1 has indeed raged for centuries, well before Darwin and evolution.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point. I never said Augustine had an old earth view. I said he viewed the Genesis 1 chronology as metaphorical rather than literal. My post was in response to Bob V, who claimed that the only reason not to believe in 6 24 hr days is to accommodate evolutionary theory. My point in bringing up Augstine is that the exact chronology of Genesis 1 has always been debated. Other pre-Darwin theologians have also questioned the literal 24 hr period. William Perkins, a 16th century Puritan, argued that creation took place in "six distinct spaces of time" rather than 6 actual day-night rotations. And as I mentioned in my first post, Calvin at least acknowledged there was room for debate on the issue, though he believed the literal 24-hr period view. So the debate over the Genesis 1 has indeed raged for centuries, well before Darwin and evolution.
Click to expand...


Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.

My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ivanhoe said:


> Oh wait,
> 
> Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.



You could add everyone at GPTS.

CT


----------



## MW

AV1611 said:


> I think that you are missing the point, whether _yom_ means 24 hours is wholly irrelevant to the message of Genesis 1-2. The sequence is thematic (and polemical) not chronological. Oh, and I agree _yom_ does mean 24 hours or at least thereabouts.



So if the scholars can prove the existence of a passion story in Mark's Gospel, or an apology for Christianity in the Acts of the Apostles, will this render these narratives any less historical? Surely not.

The scholarly assumption that theme negates history is not based on the "truth" nature of divine revelation, but emerges from a comparison of uninspired literature in which historical fact is sacrificed on the altar of ideology. It occurs to me that were Genesis 1 proven to be any thing less than history, then its theological value would be null and void, because its thematic message would be reduced to the same quality as the creation accounts of the Cannaanites, Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians -- mere propaganda.

The historicity of our faith is what makes it a true faith. The Bible does not only teach us about the nature of God in the abstract, but reveals to us what God has done in real time and space. In other words, the Bible gives us truth for our time, for the real world in which we live. Remove the historic element from the quality of truth, and truth becomes irrelevant or relative.

In reformed biblical theology, the starting point is act-revelation; this is followed by word-revelation, which explains the nature and significance of God's mighty acts. 1 Cor. 10:11, "these things happened unto them for ensamples" -- act-revelation; "and were written for our admonition" -- word revelation. This is the fundamental starting point of reformed exegesis. No interpretation of holy writ should be accepted which does not start with the basic belief that "these things happened."

What is written in Gensis 1-11 is history. In the OT, the Lord enourages and comforts His people concerning their future deliverance in terms of what He did at creation and the flood; but the NT especially draws numerous lessons from this section of Scripture, proceeding on the fundamental belief that "these things happened." God commanded light to shine out of darkness, made the earth stand out of the water and in the water, created them male and female, made man a living soul, made the Sabbath for man, joined together the man and woman, Eve was beguiled by the serpent, Cain slew Abel, Enoch was the seventh from Adam, Noah built an ark to the saving of his house. The credibility of the NT in terms of conveying absolute "truth" is severely undermined if these things did not in point of fact happen as the NT claims.


----------



## RamistThomist




----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.
> 
> My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.



Several points:

1. I completely disagree with the last sentence that non-YECers impose "unbiblical" systems into the text; there is simply no basis for that statement. The point about Augustine (which I still don't think you're getting) and the numerous other theologians through the centuries is that you can view the Genesis 1-2 account as a time span other than 6 calendar days without imposing a non-Biblical view. Considering the meaning of the Hebrew word in various places in Scripture, the unique structure of the chronology, and the fact that it does not change the meaning of creation, or any other aspect of theology at all hardly seems anti-Biblical. Is our understanding of God, the Bible, or anything else changed if the world was created in some span other than 6 calendar days? Not at all. Which brings me to the second point...

2. Why is there such an aversion to the idea that creation was undertaken in spans of time other than 6 calendar days? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the validity and infalliblity of the Bible, the fact that God created all that is in existence and that He made man in His own image. Nor does it change the rest of the Garden of Eden narrative, including the Fall. Nothing about our Faith is changed at all with a general Old Earth view of creation.

3. Scientific and historical correlation with Scripture fit much better with an Old Earth view. I'm NOT saying we should mold our understanding of the Bible to fit science or archaeology, but at the same time a Young Earth view creates not only scientific problems (I don't believe that many, actually), but numerous historical problems as well. If you accept an YE view, then there are other apparent chronological problems with the Old Testament, specifically the Exodus and Conquest account. An Old Earth view solves all these problems fairly neatly. 

4. I won't hijack this thread to state my personal view of the Genesis account, other than to say it's fairly obvious I'm a Day-Age OECer. My personal view is that God revealed the creation to Moses, which was so mind-boggling and amazing the only way He could relay it to us is through a metaphorical 6-day account. But, I could be completely wrong and it could be 6 calendar days. 

I suppose my point in this thread is that one can be an OECer and not simply be "accommodating" evolution, and that having an Old Earth view is a perfectly legitimate position, one that many prominent theologians have agreed with throughout the ages. Most other Christians I know are OECers, the pastor of my church is an OE creationist, and the official position of the PCA is that members can accept the Old Earth view "in good conscience." That hardly seems anti-Biblical to me...


----------



## A5pointer

I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.
> 
> My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several points:
> 
> 1. I completely disagree with the last sentence that non-YECers impose "unbiblical" systems into the text; there is simply no basis for that statement. The point about Augustine (which I still don't think you're getting) and the numerous other theologians through the centuries is that you can view the Genesis 1-2 account as a time span other than 6 calendar days without imposing a non-Biblical view. Considering the meaning of the Hebrew word in various places in Scripture, the unique structure of the chronology, and the fact that it does not change the meaning of creation, or any other aspect of theology at all hardly seems anti-Biblical. Is our understanding of God, the Bible, or anything else changed if the world was created in some span other than 6 calendar days? Not at all. Which brings me to the second point...
Click to expand...


I understand completely. Augustine imposed neo-platonism on Genesis. That is a very unbiblical system. 



> 2. Why is there such an aversion to the idea that creation was undertaken in spans of time other than 6 calendar days? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the validity and infalliblity of the Bible, the fact that God created all that is in existence and that He made man in His own image. Nor does it change the rest of the Garden of Eden narrative, including the Fall. Nothing about our Faith is changed at all with a general Old Earth view of creation.



It is not so much the days, per se, but rather whether it is historical. The Klinean system, as well as most OEC, strains (if not outright snaps) the history of the text. 


> 3. Scientific and historical correlation with Scripture fit much better with an Old Earth view. I'm NOT saying we should mold our understanding of the Bible to fit science or archaeology, but at the same time a Young Earth view creates not only scientific problems (I don't believe that many, actually), but numerous historical problems as well. If you accept an YE view, then there are other apparent chronological problems with the Old Testament, specifically the Exodus and Conquest account. An Old Earth view solves all these problems fairly neatly.



Secular science be damned. 


> 4. I won't hijack this thread to state my personal view of the Genesis account, other than to say it's fairly obvious I'm a Day-Age OECer. My personal view is that God revealed the creation to Moses, which was so mind-boggling and amazing the only way He could relay it to us is through a metaphorical 6-day account. But, I could be completely wrong and it could be 6 calendar days.



Um...wow.



> I suppose my point in this thread is that one can be an OECer and not simply be "accommodating" evolution, and that having an Old Earth view is a perfectly legitimate position, one that many prominent theologians have agreed with throughout the ages. Most other Christians I know are OECers, the pastor of my church is an OE creationist, and the official position of the PCA is that members can accept the Old Earth view "in good conscience." That hardly seems anti-Biblical to me...



I don't doubt that these are good people. I have never made value-judgments on the character of non-YECers. But I can turn it around and say that I know so many good people who are YECers and just can't imagine they would be theologically wrong.


----------



## RamistThomist

A5pointer said:


> I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.



Because of the _waw_ conversive (consecutive). In 99.9% of the cases it is used in Scripture it is chronological narrative. 

But the sword cuts both ways. Revelation 21-22 is obviously poetic. That means it very well could not be history, which means it is probably not real. Ergo, heaven is not a place (contra Belinda Carlyle) but a poetic expression of man's deepest longing.


----------



## BobVigneault

The Bawb, The Jacob, The Josh, The _et al_.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> I don't doubt that these are good people. I have never made value-judgments on the character of non-YECers. But I can turn it around and say that I know so many good people who are YECers and just can't imagine they would be theologically wrong.



Being "theologically wrong" and "anti-Biblical" are very different things. Also, how does an Old Earth view "strain the history" of the Genesis account?


----------



## AV1611

joshua said:


> Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.



I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the _waw_ conversive (consecutive). In 99.9% of the cases it is used in Scripture it is chronological narrative.
> 
> But the sword cuts both ways. Revelation 21-22 is obviously poetic. *That means it very well could not be history, which means it is probably not real.* Ergo, heaven is not a place (contra Belinda Carlyle) but a poetic expression of man's deepest longing.
Click to expand...


You jump from non-literal=not history/not real. Why?


----------



## AV1611

joshua said:


> Why? If you've a point to make, make it.



My point is simply this, what role do you see redactors having in the completed canon? Moses did not write _all_ of Genesis hence we need to rethink our approach to the Pentateuch and how we understand it. Every genre of Canon needs to be interpreted using rules specific to that genre, hence the need to determine the genre of Genesis 1-2. Until we do this, we are on shakey ground indeed.


----------



## A5pointer

joshua said:


> Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall. At what point does the rendering of the text change and denote such a transition? I'm with the Bawb, the Jacob, _et al_ on this 'n.




Jesus on His way to the cross says I am the door. Does a non-literal approach to door lead anyone to doubt the historicity of the crucifixion?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

joshua said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If you've a point to make, make it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simply this, what role do you see redactors having in the completed canon? Moses did not write _all_ of Genesis hence we need to rethink our approach to the Pentateuch and how we understand it. Every genre of Canon needs to be interpreted using rules specific to that genre, hence the need to determine the genre of Genesis 1-2. Until we do this, we are on shakey ground indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when, then, does the text between Gen. 2 and Gen. 3 indicate a transition from figurative or day age, to historical narrative?
Click to expand...


Genesis 2:4 looks like a pretty clear transition point to me. Even John MacArthur, a YECer, notes that Genesis 2:4 marks the beginning of the "history of the heavens and earth" and that it "fills in the details" left out of Genesis 1-2:3.


----------



## A5pointer

joshua said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus on His way to the cross says I am the door. Does a non-literal approach to door lead anyone to doubt the historicity of the cricifixion?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"
Click to expand...


No, comparing day to bread.


----------



## Christusregnat

BJClark said:


> Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...
> 
> So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..
> 
> I had to answer a question in Science one year explaining how the earth could show such an old age if it is only a few thousand years (using Biblical references)..and I used an arguement about the one day being as a thousand years..if one day is as a thousand years, and there have been X number of days that would be X number of thousands of years that have past..making the earth old..the professor was actually intrigued by my response, as it was one she hadn't heard before but it made her look up the verses I refered to. And when we include the sudden flood, and receeding waters that too would effect what the age of the earth appears to be..
> 
> 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



All well and good, but the fact remains that a day is AS a thousand years, and IS NOT a thousand years. The only way a day is as a thousand years is because God is supra-temporal, and therefore not subject to the process of time as we are; this is what Peter uses to comfort his audience. 

Analogies ARE NOT truth; they are likenesses of truth. That is, unless you are Barthian, Leithartian, Nominalist or Neo-Orthodox, which I don't think you are; I'm just being a stinker 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

AV1611 said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there a debate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is great debate because the text itself is not clear. As Mason has pointed out, Augustine, to which we could add a number of Greek Fathers, saw the creation account for what it was, an account of creation. It is not a scientific treatise. We need to look at the story behind the account, not least its relation with Ancient Near East creation accounts as regards Mythopoetic language and thought forms. Further, we need to take into account the work of redactors.
Click to expand...


Howdy AV1611,

Let me see if I understand:

1. Genesis 1-2 is textually unclear (or unclear in reading)?
2. The Genesis 1-2 account provides no knowledge (this is what science, or scientia means: knowledge), but is a story
3. the Bible is really a story book (at least in Genesis 1-2) not intended to give us historical accounts, but nice religious stories
4. Comparative literature, namely that of wicked degenerated uninspired pagans, helps us understand our book without knowledge, which we unspiritual sort misinterpret as providing scientia.

WOW! What a dunce I am! I actually thought that Jesus rose from the dead, but now I understand that I must see the story behind the resurrection accounts. Whew! This makes Christianity a little more acceptable to my pagan friends! OH, and I should check out the comparative literature on the Phoenix and Tamuz in order to understand God's neat story about new life.

Maybe you're playing devil's advocate, but then again, maybe I am too 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
Click to expand...


Joseph


----------



## Christusregnat

A5pointer said:


> I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.



5 Pointer, 

this is a threat to the method of interpreting the Bible.

If one arbitrarily sets aside the literal meaning of the text, without a biblical reason to do so, the Scriptures then become a smorgasbord for his appetites. What he likes, he accepts; what he doesn't like, he demythologizes.

You can talk about the inerrancy (or "accuracy") of Scripture all you want, but we're talking about the perspicuity and clarity of Scripture at this point. Without a clear and intelligible word for God, it doesn't really matter that it is "accurate" because no one would be able to understand its contents.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph
Click to expand...


Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms


----------



## RamistThomist

Christusregnat said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms
Click to expand...


Joseph didn't write most of the Law. Or you can still say "Moses did it," serving as Joseph's redactor on Genesis.


----------



## A5pointer

joshua said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, comparing day to bread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is _obviously_ being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.
Click to expand...


We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.


----------



## RamistThomist

A5pointer said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, comparing day to bread.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is _obviously_ being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.
Click to expand...


History implies chronology. Thus the use of the _waw_ (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the _waw_ in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the _waw_ in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic? 

It is purely arbitrary for you to say, "This is historic" but "this is not" when the prime indicator of history, a _waw_ is used in both cases.


----------



## A5pointer

joshua said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Maybe (but not really).
> 2. Who's doing the forcing of reading here?
> 
> There seems to be eisogesis for OECer. I mean, seriously, who's gonna read Genesis 1-3 and gather the Day Age theory exegetically and according to the Analogy of Scripture minus thoughts purported from elsewhere externally?
Click to expand...


Joshua, I understand your concern and admire your tenacity in defense. I am not a day ager. Just someone who says it is difficult to pigeon hole the days to 24 hours. I have no problem with an instantaneous creation. That would be my opinion at this time. It takes a way the difficulties of harmonization and allows for the brilliant structure of the literature to say what it says. Yahweh creates all from nothing and rests.


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> History implies chronology. Thus the use of the _waw_ (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the _waw_ in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the _waw_ in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?



May be you would like to set forth your argument using the _waw_ with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".


----------



## Poimen

Gentlemen:

I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> History implies chronology. Thus the use of the _waw_ (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the _waw_ in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the _waw_ in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May be you would like to set forth your argument using the _waw_ with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".
Click to expand...


Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

Now, as to textual support. I will not copy paste every Hebrew verse that has "and" in it!


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.



I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
Click to expand...


You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Poimen said:


> Gentlemen:
> 
> I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.



From an earlier post by AV1611:

Day 1: Let there be light (1:3). 
Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).

Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6). 
Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20). 

Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11). 
Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).

Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....


----------



## A5pointer

Yikes, looks like it may be a well structured literary device.


----------



## AV1611

ColdSilverMoon said:


> You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...



But even then you see the length of the day is unimportant because the purpose of Moses was not to set forth a scientific timeline of creation but was providing Israel with their own cosmology.


----------



## A5pointer

I just read over some work on this in an unpublished book on Biblical symbols and images. The Author attributes this structure's intent to bring focus to the 7th day where God unlike mesopotamian gods finishes and rests. Points of note.

1. There are not qualifiers "there was morning and evening" like the other days. Thus highlighting Yahweh's eternal rest from creating. 

2.The structure is as seen is a 3/3/1 pattern of offsetting parallelism as has been seen above with focus on the 1(the seventh day)

3. The number 7 seen as a symbol for fullness or completeness in ancient literature including the Bible.

4. It may be unreasonable to see eternal God operating in time at all in creation. Lending support to instantaneous creation.

5. Why 2 accounts of creation? ANE tought of word/deed. Power was thought to be held in words and deeds. The first account shows God speaking the second shows God doing things thus confirming the His power through word and deed.

There is more. I find it compelling. The Author in recognizing the occassion of the book concludes:

"Looking at the careful way Moses structured this account in terms of what he says (the content) as well as how he says it (the form), combined with the occasion on which it was written, the only conclusion which does full justice to all of the facts at hand is that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is not designed to be a scientific account of creation "the way it happened." Moses had a purpose here far different; one that fit his situation-- the situation the people he was leading out of bondage in Egypt were confronted with-- and it was that situation he addressed with brilliance and cogency in terms of the structure and the substance of his account."

This work is contained in a chapter on the "Sea" as a biblical symbol and image" I can e-mail the chapter to anyone who would like to take a look. My summary does not do it justice.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
Click to expand...


If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp. 

I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
Click to expand...


Sorry to have to disagree on this yet again, but subscribing to a 1-7 chronology does NOT necessarily make one a YE creationist. That the events of Day 1 happened before Day 2, which happened before Day 3, etc. does not imply a calendar day. 

I agree that the writers of the Confession believed in 24 hr days, but the wording is still broad: "in the space of six days." This of course resolves nothing, because one of the key issues is what exactly constitutes a day in this account. 

As an aside, here is an interesting excerpt from Calvin:

"...it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."


----------



## Poimen

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen:
> 
> I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From an earlier post by AV1611:
> 
> Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
> Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).
> 
> Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
> Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).
> 
> Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
> Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).
> 
> Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....
Click to expand...


I responded to that here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/376726-post45.html


----------



## Poimen

Structures, numbers, parallels are all fine. None of them necessitate a change in the length of the days as determined by the text (morning and evening). 

The length of the day is important because it is repeated throughout the narrative.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have to disagree on this yet again, but subscribing to a 1-7 chronology does NOT necessarily make one a YE creationist. That the events of Day 1 happened before Day 2, which happened before Day 3, etc. does not imply a calendar day.
> 
> I agree that the writers of the Confession believed in 24 hr days, but the wording is still broad: "in the space of six days." This of course resolves nothing, because one of the key issues is what exactly constitutes a day in this account.
> 
> As an aside, here is an interesting excerpt from Calvin:
> 
> "...it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."
Click to expand...


I think I see: are you defining day in 24 hour terms?

If so, then if you posit a chronology, equaling a 144 hour week, then you cannot escape YEC. Because if days 1-7 follow each other, then I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion.

If day can mean anything at this point, well anything goes (including a consistent hermeneutics).


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> I think I see: are you defining day in 24 hour terms?
> 
> If so, then if you posit a chronology, equaling a 144 hour week, then you cannot escape YEC. Because if days 1-7 follow each other, then I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion.
> 
> If day can mean anything at this point, well anything goes (including a consistent hermeneutics).



You're right, I'm not using 24 hr days. And I obviously disagree about consistent hermeneutics. That's the whole point of this discussion, no?


----------



## A5pointer

Poimen said:


> Structures, numbers, parallels are all fine. None of them necessitate a change in the length of the days as determined by the text (morning and evening).
> 
> The length of the day is important because it is repeated throughout the narrative.



As has been noted, day seven it is not. What would you make of that?


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> *I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession*.
Click to expand...


As valuable and important as the confession is it should not be the messure that is defended. It is the text that must be adressed. This comment elevates the confession to a level that it was never inted to be. Hardley an essential to the faith. The framers would cringe at this.


----------



## RamistThomist

A5pointer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> *I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As valuable and important as the confession is it should not be the messure that is defended. It is the text that must be adressed. This comment elevates the confession to a level that it was never inted to be. Hardley an essential to the faith. The framers would cringe at this.
Click to expand...


That was tongue-in-cheek on my part. I am not close to a full subscriptionist. It was a TR joke.


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> *I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As valuable and important as the confession is it should not be the messure that is defended. It is the text that must be adressed. This comment elevates the confession to a level that it was never inted to be. Hardley an essential to the faith. The framers would cringe at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was tongue-in-cheek on my part. I am not close to a full subscriptionist. It was a TR joke.
Click to expand...


Oh cool, you got me on that one. You know how some of them can be. Need the emoticons for dull wits like me.


----------



## RamistThomist

:shakehand:

I will probably call it on that one. I fear that if this continues, we will be talking in circles (part of which would be my fault).

My Hebrew prof in seminary, a godly and learned man--and arguably the best _teacher_ I have ever set under, was an articulate framework theory guy.


----------



## A5pointer

Peace brother, I am feeling dizzzy myself.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

mark said:


> HI Black Calvinist.
> I have found it helpful that the sun and moon are not required for a 24 hour period for days 1-3, rather, what is required is a) light, created on day one, and b) a revolving earth, already existent, though "formless and void" but becoming less so for days 2 and 3 through the action of creation.
> 
> Have you ever check out Reformed Blacks of America? Good stuff.



RBA _used to be good_. MM, Lee and Xavier have started down a dangerous path with a lot of their recent posts (check Reformed Blacks of America's Blog » More Chocolate In My Music Please! for an example). Quincy Jones (not THAT Quincy Jones) has done a few rebuttals on some of their items: 
http://truthintheinnermost.blogspot.com/2007/10/open-letter-to-lee-richardson.html


----------



## Iconoclast

*Maybe it is just this simple!*

Moses was not there during creation week.
Moses was not there before the flood.
Moses is told by God what happened , when , and how, by special revelation.
Moses is living at a time when the sun and moon are providing 24 hour days
Moses is told by God 6 days- 24 hour days
Moses writes as he is instructed,understanding.... day as a day like we all know a day to be-24 hours
Jesus never changed any teaching from the OT. the way some of the modern " commentators " seek to do


----------



## BlackCalvinist

BobVigneault said:


> Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.
> 
> I'm missing something. I'm slow.



What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)

So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?

The text doesn't say. 

Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:

We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.

The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years

So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days. 

We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Christusregnat

Ivanhoe said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph didn't write most of the Law. Or you can still say "Moses did it," serving as Joseph's redactor on Genesis.
Click to expand...


Gotcha! I just liked the term, the Law of Joseph!


----------



## Christusregnat

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
Click to expand...


"TR" = Old Puritan


----------



## Grymir

With the structure in Genesis "This is the book of" in several places, Moses didn't redact them, but put them together to form Genesis. (Evolutionist's have a hard time admitting that early man could write, y'a know the caveman thing. Actually, Geico's caveman is closer to the truth!)

P.s. We TR's also know the truth of self-steathification and are waiting for it to happen.


----------



## Christusregnat

A5pointer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> *I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As valuable and important as the confession is it should not be the messure that is defended. It is the text that must be adressed. This comment elevates the confession to a level that it was never inted to be. Hardley an essential to the faith. The framers would cringe at this.
Click to expand...



I don't think so. A standard that is not looked to is no longer a standard, it is a meaningless piece of drivvel. They intended EVERY MINISTER IN THE THREE KINGDOMS to pledge his life and his ministry to their work. If that's not a standard, what is?

Adam


----------



## DMcFadden

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen:
> 
> I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From an earlier post by AV1611:
> 
> Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
> Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).
> 
> Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
> Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).
> 
> Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
> Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).
> 
> Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....
Click to expand...


Among the many arguments adduced for the support of the yec position, I rather like the fact of the institution of the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11. The logic of the Sabbath as a DAY makes little sense without reference to the DAYS of creation.


----------



## AV1611

Ivanhoe said:


> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.



The structure of the prose clearly demonstrates that the days are not to be taken in a strict chronological order or a calendar week. Hence the importance of the parallelism of days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6. 

Prof. Waltke and Prof. Futato, both of whom have taught Biblical Hebrew and have published Hebrew Grammars, disagree with you on the import of the _waw_. So grant me leave to disagree with your insistence that it is as cut and dried linguistically as you imagine.


----------



## py3ak

How does parallelism demonstrate that they are not in chronological order? This is the point I'm having difficulty grasping from this thread. Those who argue for agnosticism on 24-hour days (at least for the 1st 3) or those who argue against, point to some facts in the text which no one has denied. But I don't see how those facts militate against the view of the Westminster Assembly. The argument seems to be: Day 1 parallels Day 4, therefore the days are not given in chronological order. But why? How does that follow?


----------



## A5pointer

After reading work done on this by Will Hallman I think the issue is not whether the days were literal. They seem to be literal within a literary structure that is to be taken literally in it’s main focal intention while allowing for the all the details inside the unit not to be taken literally. Ie a story. Below find selected sections of this work. I have only selected out enough to get the general idea across. Sorry, I have to cut and paste. I do not have a blog. I will again offer to e-mail the excerpts to anyone who is interested in actually looking at the thesis. It is in total fairly brief and right to the point. I know some are quite uncomfortable about this type of view but I think you would be doing a disservice by choosing not to take a look. I actually find it compelling but as for all of us we are always seeking to learn. Feel free as usual to dissuade me of the error. 

Hallman writes on pg 211

The Literary Structure of Genesis 1:1-2:4a
A close reading of the narrative in Genesis 1:1-2:4a reveals a striking structural phenomena. The text begins with the creation of light on the first day, the sky above and the waters below on the second day, and the formation of the dry ground on the third day. Most interestingly, though light had already been created on day one, the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day. And, whereas the sky and sea were formed on day 2, the life which inhabits them did not come into existence until day 5. What is more, though Moses accounts for the appearance of the dry land by the third day, this land was uninhabited until day 6, when both the brute creation as well as man made in the image of God came into being! To cap off all of this creative activity, Moses writes that by the seventh day Yahweh finished all the work He had been doing, and then rested!

And on pgs 218-219

The Occasion for the Document
Scripture is situation specific. The documents of the Bible are occasional writings, produced to address a definite problem in a particular historical context.
As we have noted, the situation Moses and his people faced at the time Genesis was written was the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Caanan. Therefore this was the question which occupied the minds of both Moses and his readers, and thus it was this issue which needed to be resolved when God inspired Moses to infallibly inscribe the creation account. As such, neither God nor Moses designed this narrative to be an historical account of creation "the way it happened", but rather a description of God's power in order to instill faith and confidence in Him, and to inspire obedience to Him instead of succumbing to the temptation to fear and worship the gods of the idolatrous Cananites.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses rose to this occasion by establishing Yahweh's omnipotence and ontological holiness through the dramatization of His powerful words and deeds. That is, he described the characteristics of God based upon His real accomplishments-- in language easily understood and taken to heart by his audience. 

The Seven Day Concept
In the earlier section "The Literary Structure of Genesis..." I noted that in structuring the creation account in categories of 3:3:1, Moses emphasized the completion of the creation, making the seventh day the focus of the entire account; that the whole tenor of the text is on completion of the task, which is only finally discharged by the seventh day! Now if God is really eternal, and therefore timeless, not needing a nana second let alone six days to accomplish whatsoever He deigns to bring to pass, why would Moses structure his account in a seven day framework?
The answer lies in the fact that seven was a common way in the Ancient Near East to express completeness of an eventuality, fullness of elapsed time, maximum intensity, and the like. Expressing something in terms of seven was thus a way of saying that the total number of particulars in that unit was complete and accounted for, that all which could be said or done had been exhausted, the extremes of something had been reached, et cetera.
That this is so in both the Bible as well as in the non-canonical literature of the Ancient Near East is easily demonstrated from the following examples.


----------



## AV1611

py3ak said:


> How does parallelism demonstrate that they are not in chronological order? This is the point I'm having difficulty grasping from this thread. Those who argue for agnosticism on 24-hour days (at least for the 1st 3) or those who argue against, point to some facts in the text which no one has denied. But I don't see how those facts militate against the view of the Westminster Assembly. The argument seems to be: Day 1 parallels Day 4, therefore the days are not given in chronological order. But why? How does that follow?



The focus of the narrative is thematic not chronological. So we have the parallels

*Day 1:*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. 
*Day 4:* And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


*Day 2:* And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. 
*Day 5:* And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 

*Day 3:* And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
*Day 6:* Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. 

*The triad (days 1-3):* Light, Land, Vegetation.
*The triad (days 4-6):* Lights, Waters, Animals and Humans.

Waltke notes:

*Day*......................*Form*.............*Day.*................*Fill*
*1*..................Light.....................*4*..................Lights 
*2*..................Firmament.............*5*...............Inhabitants
.....................Sky.......................................Birds
.....................Seas.....................................Fish
*3*..................Dry land................*6*...............Land animals
...................Vegetation...............................Humanity

The emphasis is upon the themes of the two triads not the chronology of days 1-7. The importance of this is evident when one considers the context in which Moses was writing, i.e. the interaction with Ancient Near East cosmology. But now I am starting to repeat myself.


----------



## VictorBravo

Ivanhoe said:


> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.



Let's just say that you and many others seem to holding up just fine.


----------



## A5pointer

victorbravo said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just say that you and many others seem to holding up just fine.
Click to expand...



Ah, the cavalry is watching and poised for action


----------



## py3ak

Richard, I get the parallelism. What I don't get is why 1.) that parallelism would somehow imply that things didn't _actually_ happen in that way, and 2.) why the parallel organization would take any validity away from the time references. I'll go ahead and grant you the ANE parallels as well. So what? Does the fact that something works as literature mean it can't possibly reflect the facts? Let's take another example. In the account of the plagues in Egypt, the polemic is a lot more obvious, because the Bible comes right out and says that God triumphed over the gods of the Egyptians. So does the Exodus narrative show that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is real and the fables of the Egyptians are vanity? Certainly it does: but the Exodus narrative shows that because it faithfully records the Exodus events. 
I understand that you're saying that the Creation account has a literary, a theological, a polemical purpose; so does the book of Chronicles: so do the Gospels. Why would this mean that the days are not normal days?
By the way, on the fourth day, the lights are created to rule the divisions that have already been created between night and day. It doesn't sound like it's presenting a radical change: it's just appointing official light-bearers to maintain the status quo.


----------



## ChristianTrader

*Comments by Wayne Grudem:*

‘First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the “firmament” … that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen. 1:6–8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen. 1:14–19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days (or to rule the kingdoms as Kline says), then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1.

‘Moreover, the parallel between Days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of Day 5 does not come in Day 2 but in Day 3. It is not until Day 3 that God gathers the waters together and calls them “seas” (Gen. 1:10), and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to “fill the waters in the seas” (Gen. 1:22). Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called “fish of the sea”, giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. Thus, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the “waters above the firmament”, and the flying things created on this day (the Hebrew word would include flying insects as well as birds) not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the “earth” or “dry land” created on Day 3. (Note God’s command on Day 5: “Let birds multiply on the earth” [Gen. 1:22].) 

‘Finally, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary “framework,” while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.’

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## AV1611

py3ak said:


> Richard, I get the parallelism. What I don't get is why 1.) that parallelism would somehow imply that things didn't _actually_ happen in that way, and 2.) why the parallel organization would take any validity away from the time references.



My current thinking is that (1) the structure does not _de facto_ rule out six-day creationism, but I am still pondering the implications; (2) we need to bear in mind that Genesis 1-2 is a cosmology, hence it is not, of necessity, an actual account of what really happened unlike the Exodus, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

AV1611 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I get the parallelism. What I don't get is why 1.) that parallelism would somehow imply that things didn't _actually_ happen in that way, and 2.) why the parallel organization would take any validity away from the time references.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current thinking is that (1) the structure does not _de facto_ rule out six-day creationism, but I am still pondering the implications; (2) we need to bear in mind that Genesis 1-2 is a cosmology, hence it is not, of necessity, an actual account of what really happened unlike the Exodus, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc.
Click to expand...


I agree in principle, but I do believe Genesis 1 IS an actual account of what happened. What is unclear to me is the length of time of each "day" of creation. 24 hour days? Very possible. Undetermined, but distinct period of time? Also very possible. Nonetheless, Genesis 1 details what actually happened in the beginning.


----------



## ChristianTrader

ColdSilverMoon said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I get the parallelism. What I don't get is why 1.) that parallelism would somehow imply that things didn't _actually_ happen in that way, and 2.) why the parallel organization would take any validity away from the time references.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current thinking is that (1) the structure does not _de facto_ rule out six-day creationism, but I am still pondering the implications; (2) we need to bear in mind that Genesis 1-2 is a cosmology, hence it is not, of necessity, an actual account of what really happened unlike the Exodus, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree in principle, but I do believe Genesis 1 IS an actual account of what happened. What is unclear to me is the length of time of each "day" of creation. 24 hour days? Very possible. Undetermined, but distinct period of time? Also very possible. Nonetheless, Genesis 1 details what actually happened in the beginning.
Click to expand...


Mason,
Just keep in mind that there is no one in Church history that disagrees with the YEC time frame of 6-10k years for the age of the universe.

CT


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ChristianTrader said:


> Mason,
> Just keep in mind that there is no one in Church history that disagrees with the YEC time frame of 6-10k years for the age of the universe.
> 
> CT



Perhaps, but quite a few believed that the days were not 24 hour days, including John Lightfoot, a member of the Westminster Assembly, who believed the first day was 36 hours.


----------



## ChristianTrader

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> Just keep in mind that there is no one in Church history that disagrees with the YEC time frame of 6-10k years for the age of the universe.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but quite a few believed that the days were not 24 hour days, including John Lightfoot, a member of the Westminster Assembly, who believed the first day was 36 hours.
Click to expand...


My point is that if one wants to argue for "wiggle room", one needs to understand where the room ends.

Also the question of "what is the point" comes up. Unless you drop the 6-10k year agreement, you are going to be stuck with all the problems of YEC creationism. The scientists/secularists/etc are going to make just as much fun of you as regular died in the wool 6/24 YECers.

CT


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ChristianTrader said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> Just keep in mind that there is no one in Church history that disagrees with the YEC time frame of 6-10k years for the age of the universe.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but quite a few believed that the days were not 24 hour days, including John Lightfoot, a member of the Westminster Assembly, who believed the first day was 36 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that if one wants to argue for "wiggle room", one needs to understand where the room ends.
> 
> Also the question of "what is the point" comes up. Unless you drop the 6-10k year agreement, you are going to be stuck with all the problems of YEC creationism. The scientists/secularists/etc are going to make just as much fun of you as regular died in the wool 6/24 YECers.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


CT, I appreciate your post, but you make a very unfair assumption that the reason I am an OE Creationist is to avoid "being made fun of" by secularists and scientists. The equivalent is for me to say the only reason you are a YECer is to win points with your fellow church members and fellow members of this forum. Neither accusation is worthy, fair, or justified. 

Having doubled majored in biology and biochemistry in college, I learned enough science and sat through enough evolutionary bilge to know it takes greater faith to believe there isn't a God than to believe there is One. Furthermore, to extrapolate valid micro-evolutionary principles to explain the origin of mankind is atrocious "science" (not to mention many, many other fatal flaws to evolutionary/atheistic thinking). So no, I'm not trying to win any favor with those types or avoid their ridicule. 

I have come to my positions based first and foremost on the authority of the Bible, followed by reasonable historical and scientific understanding, so long as it fits with what the Bible says. I respect the YEC view, and realize and it may be 100% correct, and the OEC view may be completely wrong. But it is only fair to say the opposite could also very well be true. That's not being relativistic: one of us is right, the other is wrong (or we may both be right to some degree), but we cannot conclusively make that determination until it is revealed to us by God in Eternity. 

Again, I don't understand the fierce subscription to the 24-hr day belief. It makes no difference to our faith or our understanding of God and His Word. You can be a YECer, I can be an OECer, and we can still be in 100% theological agreement on every other issue.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Mason,
I am not really trying to fight your position, I just want it to be crystal clear that OEC is a novelty in found only in very recent history. There is no footing whatever to be found for it in history. Sometimes people use some sleight of hand to use some disagreement in history about one point to somehow justify a position that was never in doubt. I am not accusing you of such. Just trying to make sure everyone stays honest.

The fierce subscription to the belief comes from the viewpoint that capitulation on this issue easily leads to capitulation elsewhere. It looks like an easy case of capitulation because no one held to it until "science" started attacking it. Somehow the hermeneutics changed. Why, if it is not capitulation?

As an aside, do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide? Almost no OEC that I know of believes that it was.

CT


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ChristianTrader said:


> Mason,
> I am not really trying to fight your position, I just want it to be crystal clear that OEC is a novelty in found only in very recent history. There is no footing whatever to be found for it in history. Sometimes people use some sleight of hand to use some disagreement in history about one point to somehow justify a position that was never in doubt. I am not accusing you of such. Just trying to make sure everyone stays honest.
> 
> As an aside, do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide? Almost no OEC that I know of believes that it was.
> 
> CT



Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I do believe in a worldwide, global flood, because it was a supernatural event, just as the 10 plagues were supernatural events, along many other events in the Old Testament. 

Having said that, the belief that the flood was limited to the "known world," or where all humans resided (thus wiping out all humans except Noah and his family, as the Bible says), is plausible in my mind. But it actually makes more sense to me that god caused the deluge to cover the entire planet, rather than a limited area.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Contrary to popular belief Light was not the first thing God created:

"...*and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,* Gen. 1:2b.

Water was the first thing which God Created - unless you want to say that water is as eternal as God? I hope not.

I think that the water referred to here are the waters of the Earth from which the land rises up, 1:10. Thus, the perspective of the whole Creation week is from that of Earth.

When God created light - it was an external light source shining upon the waters. From the perspective of the Earth a twenty-four hour day should be expected.

What I find very compelling is Dr. Humphrey's "White Hole Cosmology" from the Answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the _waw_ signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
> 
> I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
Click to expand...


WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional.



As is denying the pope be the antichrist yet you are happy to deny that 

On a serious note; the Westminster divines understood the central message - God created - but what they missed was the literary means by which God tells us this. This was not their fault, just one of those things.


----------



## A5pointer

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Contrary to popular belief Light was not the first thing God created:
> 
> "...*and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,* Gen. 1:2b.
> 
> Water was the first thing which God Created - unless you want to say that water is as eternal as God? I hope not.
> 
> I think that the water referred to here are the waters of the Earth from which the land rises up, 1:10. Thus, the perspective of the whole Creation week is from that of Earth.
> 
> When God created light - it was an external light source shining upon the waters. From the perspective of the Earth a twenty-four hour day should be expected.
> 
> What I find very compelling is Dr. Humphrey's "White Hole Cosmology" from the Answers in Genesis:
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



You bring up an interesting point. The text does not say that God created the sea(deep). It was assumed in ANE parallel accounts of creation that the sea already existed kind of like the biblical account. Yikes another can of worms.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is denying the pope be the antichrist yet you are happy to deny that
> 
> On a serious note; the Westminster divines understood the central message - God created - but what they missed was the literary means by which God tells us this. This was not their fault, just one of those things.
Click to expand...


Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.



Their interpretation of Revelation was necessarily coloured by their culture and historic circumstances. 

My point was fairly obvious and I am sure you got the point; you are welcome to charge me as being unconfessional, but if you do so, make sure you agree jot and tittle with it yourself. That you don't, renders your whole point somewhat moot.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their interpretation of Revelation was necessarily coloured by their culture and historic circumstances.
> 
> My point was fairly obvious and I am sure you got the point; you are welcome to charge me as being unconfessional, but if you do so, make sure you agree jot and tittle with it yourself. That you don't, renders your whole point somewhat moot.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily; I have no problem with someone admitting that they do not agree with the WCF when they genuinely don't. However, this needs to be made clear. 

I agree with what you say about the Puritan interpretation of Revelation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> WCF Chapter 4
> 
> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
> 
> 
> Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.



"In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF Chapter 4
> 
> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
> 
> 
> Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?
Click to expand...


First, I agree that *some* (read *minority*) were not 6/24. 

However, this is the same line of reasoning that FVers use to justify their position as being confessional. 

"Well, its broad enough to mean that." 

Several at the confession didn't believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Does that mean that denying the imputation is confessional?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Several at the confession didn't believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Does that mean that denying the imputation is confessional?



Not to get off topic, but which several were those exactly?


----------



## ChristianTrader

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF Chapter 4
> 
> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
> 
> 
> Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?
Click to expand...


This is no history in the church for OEC. Why do you even look to history to in anyway justify it? Why not just say that your scientific knowledge leads you to the position and be done with it.

CT


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> This is no history in the church for OEC.



William Shedd notes that "respecting the length of the six creative days, speaking generally, for there was some difference of views, the patristic and medieval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of twenty-four hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church." (_Dogmatic Theology_, 1:474-76)

Then we have E. J. Young, who following O. T. Allis, wrote "But then there arises the question as to the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like."

J. Gresham Machen: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time." (_The Christian View of Man_)

Neither Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1, and Warfield even allowed for evolution if memory serves me correctly.


----------



## Ravens

As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).

Because that version of world history *isn't* negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

JDWiseman said:


> As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).
> 
> Because that version of world history *isn't* negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.



I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is no history in the church for OEC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Shedd notes that "respecting the length of the six creative days, speaking generally, for there was some difference of views, the patristic and medieval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of twenty-four hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church." (_Dogmatic Theology_, 1:474-76)
> 
> Then we have E. J. Young, who following O. T. Allis, wrote "But then there arises the question as to the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like."
> 
> J. Gresham Machen: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time." (_The Christian View of Man_)
> 
> Neither Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1, and Warfield even allowed for evolution if memory serves me correctly.
Click to expand...


I repeat myself, because OEC is not an issue of days it is an issue about years. For example, Augustine held to a non six day creation viewpoint but was still a YECer.

Next, you can't claim Hodge, Warfield, etc because they came along after the capitulation happened. Or you can claim them and then say that the position was basically invented with them.

CT


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ChristianTrader said:


> This is no history in the church for OEC. Why do you even look to history to in anyway justify it? Why not just say that your scientific knowledge leads you to the position and be done with it.
> 
> CT



CT, I'm not looking to church history to support my views. In fact, the opposite is true: YECers have made repeated posts claiming that virtually no one in church history believed in anything other than a 24-hr day view, and that's simply not the case. As has been shown, even members of the Westminster Assembly believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. I didn't bring up the historical church views, but the fact is theologians throughout the centuries are virtually split on the 24-hr day understanding of creation, including quite a few contemporary theologians widely admired on this forum.

As for basing my view of the Bible on science, it should never be so. The Bible is the source of truth, not science, history, or anything else. The Bible should inform our view of the world around us, not the other way around. However, science can certainly aid our understanding of Scripture. For example, the episode of Jacob and the speckled sheep is better understood with the current knowledge of Mendelian genetics. Mitochondrial genetics shows that humans all originated from a single woman (called "Mitochondrial Eve" ironically enough), who lived in the Mesopotamian region - clearly a scientific fact that strongly supports the Bible. In fact, your understanding of "day" in Genesis 1 is based on the scientific understanding that the Earth rotates every 23:56. So yes, the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth is far older than 10,000 years does help our understanding of the Genesis 1 account. More often than not science clearly buttresses the claims of the Bible - including the Genesis 1 account.


----------



## Ravens

> I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.



For clarity's sake, I wasn't saying that based on the A.V.'s use of the word "dragons". The coexistence is a necessary inference and consequence, unless you allow for animal death prior to the fall. I sometimes say "dragons" instead of "dinosaurs" simply because it often provides a helpful segue to discuss the issue with other people. They may find it silly, but they've probably never wrestled with why, in fact, every culture of the world has "cultural memory deposits" of a time when their ancestors interacted with large reptilian beasts.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I intimated earlier, I'm curious whether Old Earthers and Frameworkers believe that man has been on this earth for roughly 6,000 years, that the flood happened roughly 4,200 years ago, that mankind coalesced around Mesopotamia to rebel against the LORD God, that all other languages were instantaneously formed as a result of God's judgment, and that mankind coexisted, for a time, with giants (biblically speaking) and dragons (dinosaurs).
> 
> Because that version of world history *isn't* negotiable, and I would be willing to bet a few blue chips that YEC's are more faithful to that history as opposed to OE's and Framework folks. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. I think a lesson can be learned from that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.
Click to expand...


Was there death before the Fall?


> In fact, your understanding of "day" in Genesis 1 is based on the scientific understanding that the Earth rotates every 23:56.



Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.


----------



## RamistThomist

JDWiseman said:


> I agree with all of those points except for the necessity of man co-existing with dinosaurs. The references to "dragon" could mean any number of current species, including crocodiles, alligators, and of course the Komodo Dragon. But otherwise I agree with all of those points, none of which contradict an OE Creation view at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity's sake, I wasn't saying that based on the A.V.'s use of the word "dragons". The coexistence is a necessary inference and consequence, unless you allow for animal death prior to the fall. I sometimes say "dragons" instead of "dinosaurs" simply because it often provides a helpful segue to discuss the issue with other people. They may find it silly, but they've probably never wrestled with why, in fact, every culture of the world has "cultural memory deposits" of a time when their ancestors interacted with large reptilian beasts.
Click to expand...


Dragons are winged, scaly beasts that breathe fire. They are to be killed by knights and from whom we rescue princesses. They are not dinosaurs, crocodiles, or komodos.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Was there death before the Fall?
> 
> Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.



Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.


----------



## Ravens

> Dragons are winged, scaly beasts that breathe fire. They are to be killed by knights and from whom we rescue princesses. They are not dinosaurs, crocodiles, or komodos.



Well, granted, I am appropriating the word somewhat to my own designs, but I'm not so sure that, historically, all dragons were thought to have breathed fire. I know Beowulf's dragon did, but in other accounts it is notably absent, e.g. Fafnir. The "dragons" of China are slightly different than the "dragons" of Europe. At the end of the day, I do think some cultural additions were added on to the kernel of truth, and that some truth was lost. So I suppose I view worldwide "dragon" (quotation marks) legends and their relation to actual history in the same way that I view the Enuma Elish as a corruption of actual history.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there death before the Fall?
> 
> Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.
Click to expand...


Can you prove that from Scripture?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there death before the Fall?
> 
> Not really, since the bible posits both "evening and morning" as time-referents for day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was clearly animal and plant death before the Fall, but obviously not human death. Plants had to die to feed the obligate herbivores. Animals had to die to feed the obligate carnivores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove that from Scripture?
Click to expand...


No. Can you prove otherwise from Scripture?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

joshua said:


> Death came through Adam's fall. Not "a form of death," but _the_ death. All death. Whatever is biblically classified as death. Romans 5.



I would agree completely, but given the context of Romans 5 it's hard to apply that to all of nature - only mankind. Just to be clear, I believe human death came as a result of sin, which means that there was no human death before the Fall, and clearly Romans 5 is referring to physical and spiritual death, along with eternal death. However, Paul discusses Adam and his posterity specifically ("through one man sin entered the world"). Nowhere is the death of animals and plants implied. 

I went back and referenced Calvin's commentary and MacAthur's commentary on Romans before posting this, and neither comment on death applying to anything other than humans. In fact, MacArthur notes that "world" specifically applies to the human realm. 

So, clearly humans did not die before the Fall, but there is no reason to believe death did not occur in the plant and animal worlds.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death came through Adam's fall. Not "a form of death," but _the_ death. All death. Whatever is biblically classified as death. Romans 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree completely, but given the context of Romans 5 it's hard to apply that to all of nature - only mankind. Just to be clear, I believe human death came as a result of sin, which means that there was no human death before the Fall, and clearly Romans 5 is referring to physical and spiritual death, along with eternal death. However, Paul discusses Adam and his posterity specifically ("through one man sin entered the world"). Nowhere is the death of animals and plants implied.
> 
> I went back and referenced Calvin's commentary and MacAthur's commentary on Romans before posting this, and neither comment on death applying to anything other than humans. In fact, MacArthur notes that "world" specifically applies to the human realm.
> 
> So, clearly humans did not die before the Fall, but there is no reason to believe death did not occur in the plant and animal worlds.
Click to expand...


You are positing death as an ontological necessity within God's creation. I don't see that kind of creation as "very good." But you could point out that nature demands death (animals eating each other, plants, etc). But this goes to show that you are reading post-fall scientific presuppositions back into the text.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."



Why not?


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


Death is an intrusion, not the norm.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that kind of creation as "very good."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is an intrusion, not the norm.
Click to expand...


Says who?

The problem is that you're imposing your view of what is "natural" and what is "very good" onto God. Why do you say the natural food chain that includes the death of plants and animals is an intrusion and not very good? Why would God think it is an intrusion? See, you're imposing your values onto God. I'm sure God is very pleased with the way He created spiders to spin their webs to catch their prey. Besides, to say there was no death before the Fall is to say God drastically re-ordered all of His creation after the Fall, which, while possible, just doesn't seem plausible. And what about the beasts of the field in Chapter 2? Did they just stand in the field and enjoy the sunshine, ignoring all that nice grass God created for them? And what did they do with their stomachs and intestines before the Fall? 

Seems like an unnecessary stretch to say death didn't occur in the animal and plant worlds prior to sin.


----------



## Grymir

O.k. I have to chime in. 

1. "the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth is far older than 10,000 years does help our understanding of the Genesis 1 account." This is faulty at best. Letting the world determine what the bible says?? If a person doesn't know the faults of the dating methods to justify this position, I will be glad to start a thread to show these. Most of the methods have faulty premises that assume an old earth. i.e., assuming pure uranium parent-daughter ratio's in dating methods. And the so called dating depending on how deep we dig, well these people assume the flood never happened. A flood would lay levels like the so called archaeologists claim are "millions" of years and would explain the fact that fossils even exist at all.

2. Animal deaths before fall?? There were no carnivores before the fall. Read Gen 1:30. "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every GREEN HERB for meat: and it was so." Therefore, vegetarian was the way. (Don't worry, after the flood, God said we could eat meat, so enjoy that steak.) Also, the phrasing of life within itself refers to plants, so they do not die like living creatures do.

3. Exegesis is not compatible with old earth. I.e. " But this goes to show that you are reading post-fall scientific presuppositions back into the text." is rampant in the old earth presupposition. What does Geneva have to do with Darwin??

4. And yes, dragons equals dinosaurs. They are to be killed by knights to rescue damsels in distress. Probably more true than is given credit.


----------



## A5pointer

we all know that there was no need to eat before the fall


----------



## RamistThomist

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."


----------



## Gloria

DMcFadden said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...
> 
> So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..
> 
> 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. *The 2 Peter 3 quote is truncated. Look at the whole verse and the context. It gives no quarter for the use to which old agers put it in Genesis.*
> 
> 2. The contextual literary cues in Genesis 1 militate against an indefinite period of time.
> a. "yom" is defined in its two literal senses when it appears first in the Bible (i.e., the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle).
> b. the use of the markers "evening" and "morning" denote a straight forward kind of day.
> c. the presence of the terms "first day," "second day," etc. denote ordinary days.
> 
> 3. The institution of the sabbath in Exodus 20 depends upon a literal reading of Genesis 1. Attempting to differentiate the earlier days from the later days only surfaces from the side of those desperately attempting to find 3.5 billion "missing" years.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the bolded point.


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."



Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> What does Geneva have to do with Darwin??


----------



## A5pointer

joshua said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> we all know that there was no need to eat before the fall
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. In fact, there is explicit provision for such. "Of all the trees in the garden you may freely eat..." However, eating fruit that's provided from a tree hardly kills the tree, now does it? Furthermore, I think Creation Research Society or somebody has distinguished between "life" as found in plants, and that of life that is found in animals and humans.
Click to expand...


I hear you and am sorry for making lite of it. I do not wish to be contenteous over this issue. It seems to be all speculation on this issue. An issue that in my opinion does not shed light on the bigger issue. Sorry again.


----------



## RamistThomist

A5pointer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.
Click to expand...


I don't consider plants "sentient beings." 

In short, I don't believe the animals were eating each other. Given my presuppositions about ontology, this seems normal. If it is absurd, how much more so in the eschaton

Isaiah 11:6-9:


> 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
> 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the *lion *_shall eat_ straw like the ox.


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't consider plants "sentient beings."
> 
> In short, I don't believe the animals were eating each other. Given my presuppositions about ontology, this seems normal. If it is absurd, how much more so in the eschaton
> 
> Isaiah 11:6-9:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
> 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the *lion *_shall eat_ straw like the ox.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Makes sense total sense to me. I went into this corner with much haste. Thank you.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

*Several points*

Rather than responding to each post individually, here are some thoughts addressing several issues:

1. The issue of death before the Fall is a major rabbit trail, and is irrelevant to the "nature of days." Even if I were a YE creationist, I would still believe in death before the Fall. The problem with the view that there was no death before the Fall is that there is no Scripture to support it. It also defies logic. To specifically address some things that were said:

Joshua - to somehow argue that by eating fruit only there was no death is both directly against Scripture ("every green herb" along with "every tree") and scientifically irrational. Fruits were once "living" with billions of cells each. The cells had to die for the fruit to ripen and of course when eaten. Are cells not considered living? If not, where do you draw the line between living and not living? It is an impossible distinction to make. Thus there was, without doubt, death before the Fall, as the very least on the cellular level. 

Ivanhoe - your Isaiah verse is taken out of context. Those verses are in reference to a prophecy, a Messianic prophecy in fact, which illustrates in vivid terms the peace the Christ will ultimately bring. Nowhere does it imply or state this was the condition of original creation. Also, when did the idea of "sentient" beings become a legitimate theological term, especially since the concept has its origins in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? Nowhere in the Bible is moral or spiritual weight given to any creature other than humans, into whom God breathed the "breath of life." There is no gradation of moral weight in the animal and plant worlds. This point has absolutely no Scriptural basis, and I would argue is thoroughly anti-Biblical in nature. And as I pointed out in Joshua's post, there is no place to draw the line. Do you draw the line with insects? Fish? Cows? Birds? Certain species of birds? Certain species of reptiles? Of mammals? Furthermore, how do you arrive at death in terms of "spilled blood?" Fleas and mites have lifespans of a few days - they need not have their blood spilled in order to die. Once again, you have no Biblical basis to support your claim, and it defies basic logic.

Gymir - Genesis 1:30 doesn't necessarily exclude carnivores, since it never mentions water animals and never says animals on ground would eat ONLY herbs. But let's say you're right, and there were no carnivores. It still does not say there was no animal death - only that animals didn't eat each other.

2. While some dating techniques have flaws in terms of their accuracy at various ages, most are reliable enough to indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Christian scientists who try to find flaws with all these techniqes lose credibility because they selectively choose what they consider negative qualities as if to discredit the methodology as a whole. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Earth is 4.4 billion years old, or even millions, but it's pretty safe to say accurate, reliable tests indicate it is older than 10,000. We can of course discuss this topic more if you wish, Grymir, but I would encourage you to really research this topic and understand it before supporting certain claims you may have read.

3. This point of this thread (at least it seems to me) is to discuss the exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible in terms of Old Earth and Young Earth creationism. There are certainly arguments for both, but neither is absolutely conclusive or fatally flawed. The reason I posted initially and the reason I think this topic is interesting is because so many YECers are so very ardent in their defense of the 24 hr day view. But why? I have no problem with the YEC view, and believe it could very well be correct. But there seems to be no room for allowance for the OEC view, even when there is certainly Biblical and scientific evidence to support it as strong or stronger than the YEC view. No one has really answered this question: Does it change anything if the OEC view is correct? I fail to see how it does. God is just as great, His creation just as amazing and awe-inspiring if He created it in an extended period of time, in six 24 hour days, or even instantaneously. Furthermore, it doesn't change any theology. As I've said before, an OE creationist and YE creationist can agree 100% on theology. 

This is a great discussion - thanks to Ivanhoe, joshua, AV1611, grymir, CT, and many others for your great insights. I've learned a lot from what you've had to say....


----------



## A5pointer

ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Joshua,

We've each had our say, so I suppose your word is the last. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these points. But again, thank you for your informative posts. I have enjoyed and look forward to reading and learning from your thoughts on various topics in the future.


----------



## RamistThomist

A5pointer said:


> ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?



Just so you won't get spammed, you might want to change that to 

a 5 pointer AT aol DOT com


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

joshua said:


> You as well as I both know that Scripture does not classify plant "death" in the same manner as animal or human death. I hate to be a copy and paste kind of guy (Sorry Jacob!), but I'll leave you with this, and I'm pretty much done with this thread as a civilian participator.
> 
> The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe



After reading the link I just want to clarify: though I am a Day Age OECer in general, I'm not in the Hugh Ross camp completely, and never have been. I do NOT believe humans evolved or died prior to the Fall. I believe humans were created specially by God (as were most other species), and did not evolve and die at all. So I do believe in animal death but not human death before the Fall, which would clearly go against Romans 5. Just wanted to be clear...


----------



## ChristianTrader

Very good article by a specialist (PhD) in Ancient History

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf


----------



## A5pointer

Ivanhoe said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me [email protected] ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you won't get spammed, you might want to change that to
> 
> a 5 pointer AT aol DOT com
Click to expand...


I am the dullest tool in the shed and don't get it. Kindly exegete for me


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.

So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.



BlackCalvinist said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.
> 
> I'm missing something. I'm slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?
> 
> And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)
> 
> So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?
> 
> The text doesn't say.
> 
> Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:
> 
> We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.
> 
> The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years
> 
> So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.
> 
> We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.
> 
> Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Thanks.


----------



## ChristianTrader

BlackCalvinist said:


> Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.
> 
> So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.
> 
> 
> 
> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for laying those verse out like that AV1611. That's interesting. The question I've been addressing is whether or not there was a 24 hour hour day before day four.
> 
> I'm missing something. I'm slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?
> 
> And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)
> 
> So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?
> 
> The text doesn't say.
> 
> Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:
> 
> We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.
> 
> The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years
> 
> So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.
> 
> We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


At the very least, saying morning and evening is the first day, etc. etc. gives the overwhelming burden of proof onto those who wish to say that those indicators mean absolutely nothing. Because that is what one has to say if one wants to say that such is an indefinite amount of time for those days.

Also I think very very few have ever said Yom always equals a 24 hour day. The usual claim is that it with the morning and evening indicators is always a 24 hour day.

CT


----------



## A5pointer

Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.

Wow, as a side note can you belive such an accomplished scholar totally checks it at the door to write a book like that? I sat right under his podium at a seminar on his book. let me say he was gracious and kind. But he admitted I was right every time I challenged him on his misuse of historic terms and use of strawmen. He even quoted Calvin out of context to lead those in attendence to believe Calvin did not hold to the system that was named after him. Amazing. I was the only Calvinist in the room. I know


----------



## Grymir

Hi BlackCalvinist!

I've answered the big question already, so I'm not gonna repeat much, but I think this quote is the crux of the issue - 

"We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once."

Does the bible day mean anything other than what 'we' define it as, or, when God says day, it means day.

Enjoy!


----------



## A5pointer

ChristianTrader said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone be nice and deal with my original question waaaaay back on page 3 ? I know all you Framework people come out of the woodwork and stir up the YEC'ers....but I see (personally) no good reason for assuming another 'order' of creation than the one written down in scripture, in order.
> 
> So far, all everyone's done is try to 'tag' it as OEC when it's not. It doesn't support the Framework view, as it takes all of the days *in the order* they are given.
> 
> 
> 
> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the purpose of the sun, moon and stars on day 4 ?
> 
> And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, (v. 14)
> 
> So.... how was a 'yom' measured prior to this ?
> 
> The text doesn't say.
> 
> Bob - this isn't a millions-of-years discussion (at least not on my end or from the person who I got this from). It's simply a matter of:
> 
> We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once.
> 
> The sun and stars were signs created for the purpose of measuring out days, seasons and years
> 
> So we can't necessarily say that days 1-3 were explicitly 24-hours. They MAY have been. They may NOT have been. The text doesn't say. They could've been 12 hour days. They could've been 1 minute days.
> 
> We don't have the normal means of measuring a day prior to day 4.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Saying 'Yom always equals a 24 hour day' has been shown to not always be the case, so I'm looking for some serious thought before 'Norm Geisler'ing a response.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very least, saying morning and evening is the first day, etc. etc. gives the overwhelming burden of proof onto those who wish to say that those indicators mean absolutely nothing. Because that is what one has to say if one wants to say that such is an indefinite amount of time for those days.
> 
> Also I think very very few have ever said Yom always equals a 24 hour day. The usual claim is that it with the morning and evening indicators is always a 24 hour day.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


What do you make of the qualification's absence on the last day?


----------



## Grymir

One more question? Are you a nomilist or a realist?? I'm sensing something here.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Grymir said:


> Hi BlackCalvinist!
> 
> I've answered the big question already, so I'm not gonna repeat much, but I think this quote is the crux of the issue -
> 
> "We (humans) define a 'day' according to the 23:56 that it takes the earth to rotate once."
> 
> Does the bible day mean anything other than what 'we' define it as, or, when God says day, it means day.
> 
> Enjoy!



I agree, Grymir, this question is the crux of the issue. One that will never be definitely answered one way or the other until God explains it all to us one "day" in eternity...


----------



## A5pointer

Grymir said:


> One more question? Are you a nomilist or a realist?? I'm sensing something here.



Are you asking me? I do not know what either of those terms mean if you are asking me.


----------



## Grymir

Well, that's when my Nomilist/Realist question may help. (and lead this disscusion to who know where? ). 

Does the word day represent an idea that is defined by man, or does the word day describe an idea that exists?

I'm not sure of the thought process that people have that are talking on this thread, And I thought that this might be an interesting way to proceed.

I was just throwing the question out, mostly to BlackCalvinist.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Grymir said:


> Well, that's when my Nomilist/Realist question may help. (and lead this disscusion to who know where? ).
> 
> Does the word day represent an idea that is defined by man, or does the word day describe an idea that exists?
> 
> I'm not sure of the thought process that people have that are talking on this thread, And I thought that this might be an interesting way to proceed.
> 
> I was just throwing the question out, mostly to BlackCalvinist.



By "nomilist" do you mean "nominalist?" If so, you've definitely opened a sizable can of worms, starting with exactly what you mean by nominalist, and whether you are referring to the modern or Reformation era definition. But really I don't know that it matters in this case, because all that matters is what God defines as day in this case. And I'm not sure that changes whether you are a nominalist or realist.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Y'all, just got back from doing my husbandly duties (shopping and combating the crowd at Wal-Mart for our weekly food supplies)

Sorry for my typo, yes I meant nominalist. I didn't know there was a modern or Reformed era definition. In the loosest sense, by nominalist I would mean that words (universals) define things that have no reality except in the mind of the individual. Realism means that words (universals) describe things that really exist.

For example, gravity. A realist would hold that gravity really exists. A nominalist would hold that the word gravity just describes the particular 'effects' that we see.

These are loose definitions, but they reflect ways of thinking, which has an impact on how someone see's the world around them.

whew! My poor brain. Hopefully after dinner, I'll be able to wax eloquent a little better.


----------



## hollandmin

I love discussions like this!!

I think that you have to interpret scripture with scripture. In every other place in scripture where days are mentioned, it refers to a 24 hour period. I do not see why there would be a deviation in the first chapter of Genesis in regards to 24 hour days, when the rest of scripture clearly teaches this. 

I also believe that God is God, and in the frame work of creating the heavens and the earth, He in his sovereign will, can make things work whether the sun was created first or the earth. 

But that's just my .02cents

blessings,


----------



## TimV

On the first page of this thread it was mentioned that there is a difference in creation order between the first and second accounts in Genesis. That was the subject of a sermon I heard recently, that plants were created on different days, therefore the creation account is metaphorical. I re-read the accounts, and still couldn't figure out what the preacher meant, and then I realized I was reading the account from an agricultural view point.You have to assume that Moses was at least as smart as we are, and wouldn't have written something so obviously contradictory. He was also from an agricultural society, and I read it "What you have just read is the history of the earth, before there were any plants, or any people to cultivate them. There was no rain, nor anyone to disturb the soil, as God had not created man at this point, so the plants that God created on the third day were full grown plants, not seeds, which need rain and disturbed soil to grow. Rather, God created adult plants, complete with root systems."

I then went through a PCA positon paper. It's very long, but gives a good historic account of differing historical views as current disagreements in understanding Genesis. You can find it here:
PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

As the paper points out, there are more than 130 commentaries dealing with the Creation account dating from the first 14 centuries after Christ, and to my knowledge, none of them spend time dealing with supposed contradictions in the order of Creation between Genesis 1 and 2. The biggest problem dealt with having light before the sun, and the difficulty in calling something a solar day with out a sun. 

I even checked a commentary from 1647 that I have by John Trapp, which isn't in many libraries, and a contradiction in Creation order just hadn't occurred to him. I also just checked the Septuagint, which is really handy for these situations and it reads really closely to how I paraphrased it to myself from a farmer's perspective. Here is the Septuagint for Genesis 2: 4-5 


> This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth,
> and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it.
> But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth.
> And God formed the man of dust of the earth and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.


So you can see here that clearly plants and man are created in exactly the same order as they are in Genesis 1.

In conclusion, the belief that there is a contradiction in Creation order between Genesis 1 and 2 seems very recent, and probably has to do with both a cultural divorce from the agricultural life and a simple translation issue.


----------



## joeholland

Whenever I get the Gen 1 day question folks I usually ask them, "How long do you think Moses thought a day was?"

You can imagine the conversation. On the verge of entering the promised land, a Jew comes up to Moses and says, "I have a question about that book you wrote. What is a yom?" 

"A yom?", Moses asks.

"Yeah, a yom. Is it a yom-yom, a yim-yom, a 24-hour-yom, a figurative-yom, a literal-yom, or 1,000-yom's?"

"Its a yom.", says Moses as he walks away shaking his head.

This is not to discourage conversation about young-earth, old-earth, punctuated-evolutionary-equilibria, the decay of the speed of light, or any of these other things. But we should ask the question, "What did the author mean by what he wrote?"


----------



## AV1611

I must confess that E. J. Young's comments are good:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...esis/Text/Articles-Books/Young_Days1a-WTJ.pdf
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...nesis/Text/Articles-Books/Young_Days2-WTJ.pdf


----------

