# Days of Creation



## fredtgreco

The six days of creation described in Genesis 1-2 are best described:


----------



## Scott Bushey

I'm gonna pick #1.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JohnV

Me too! The only hesitation I have would be to describe it in 24 hrs. plus a few minutes if it weren't exactly 24 hrs. for each day. And the sun being made on the fourth day is not a problem. 

I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.

(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)

[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:1766fff485][i:1766fff485]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:1766fff485]
Me too! The only hesitation I have would be to describe it in 24 hrs. plus a few minutes if it weren't exactly 24 hrs. for each day. And the sun being made on the fourth day is not a problem. 

I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.

(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)

[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV] [/quote:1766fff485]

That's why I phrased this as &quot;natural&quot; days, not &quot;24 hour&quot; days. :smilegrin:


----------



## Puritan Sailor

It is saddening how many &quot;great&quot; theologians have caved on this issue because they were intimidated by &quot;science.&quot; The Hodges and Warfield both surrendered to the &quot;geologists&quot; on this issue and allowed for the non-literal days, unlike Berkof (who is rare among modern theologians in this) in going on the offensive and attacking the false assumptions and flaws of science and defending the reliability of Scripture on this issue. Let us pray that more of our pastors and theologians get a backbone and uphold this important truth of the Creation days. 
My :wr50:
Puritan Sailor


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

&quot;Yom&quot; is used through chapter 1 to signify the natural day.

How do you define, or incorporate Gen. 2:4 in the continuing narrative?&quot;

&quot;This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, [b:27bc180c3d]in the day[/b:27bc180c3d] that the LORD God made the 
earth and the heavens...&quot;

Day here seems to change. Would anyone say there is warrant to incorporate this into the first chapter in ANY way?


----------



## JohnV

It's the same word. But it can only be speculated as to what it means, if it is used to call into question the use of the word in the first chapter. In Gen. 2:4 it could refer to the sixth or seventh day, referring to the finished creation, therefore using the same meaning. But if it is claimed that it refers to an unspecified length of time, there is no clue as to the length of time it refers to. 

If this is used to allow an open view of any length of time that suits the interpreter, then it is a misuse of Scripture. An unspecified meaning is not meant to allow just any meaning, but is an unspecified meaning. Therefore the speculations that come out of such a use of that word are based on the groundlesnesss of the meaning. 

Such a use takes for granted that one cannot legally be called on the carpet for his interpretation by his fellow men. It stands on the inexactness of the meaning, and not on something solid. it also assumes that the natural meaning of day is NOT the meaning, when there is no ground for that assumption. Calling the meaning into question does not provide the ground for another meaning; that still needs to be established. And there is less ground for another meaning than there is for the natural meaning.


----------



## JohnMA

[quote:eb1e4e4942][b:eb1e4e4942]Scripture and Creation[/b:eb1e4e4942]

Any attempt to deny a process of creation involving a series of successive divine fiats stretching out over a period of only six literal days is manifestly contrary to the plain, historical sense of Scripture. The Hebrew word yom (&quot;day&quot in the Genesis 1 account of creation should be understood in a normal sense of a 24-hour period, for the following reasons: 

(1) Argument from primary meaning. The preponderant usage of the word Yom (&quot;day&quot in the Old Testament is of a normal day as experienced regularly by man (though it may be limited to the hours of light, as per common understanding). The word occurs 1704 times in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority of which have to do with the normal cycle of daily earth time. Preponderant usage of a term should be maintained in exegetical analysis unless contextual forces compel otherwise. This is particularly so in historical narrative. R. L. Dabney points out: 

The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense.... It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context.

(2) Argument from explicit qualification. Moses carefully qualifies each of the six creative days with the phraseology: &quot;evening and morning.&quot;The qualification is a deliberate defining of the concept of day. Outside of Genesis 1 the words &quot;evening&quot;and &quot;morning&quot;occur together in thirty-seven verses. In each instance it speaks of a normal day. Examples from Moses include: 

Exodus 18:13: &quot;And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.&quot; 

Exodus 27:21: &quot;In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD.&quot;

R. L. Dabney argues that this evidence alone should compel adoption of a literal-day view: 

The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation, by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, 'morning and evening.'... It is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second 'day'; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs:-one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time.

(3) Argument from ordinal prefix. In the 119 cases in Moses' writings where the Hebrew word Yom stands in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.), it never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside the Pentateuch, where numerical adjectives occur. 

Examples include: 

Leviticus 12:3: &quot;And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.&quot; 

Exodus 12:15: &quot;Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.&quot; 

Exodus 24:16: &quot;Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.&quot; 

The Genesis 1 account of creation consistently applies the ordinal prefix to the day descriptions, along with &quot;evening and morning&quot;qualifiers (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). 

(4) Argument from coherent usage. The word Yom is used of the creative days of four, five, and six, which occur after the creation of the sun, which was expressly designated to &quot;rule&quot;the day/night pattern (Gen. 1:14). The identical word (Yom) and phraseology (&quot;evening and morning,&quot;numerical adjectives) associated with days four through six are employed of days one through three, which compel us to understand those days as normal earth days. 

(5) Argument from divine exemplar. In Exodus 20:9-11 (the Fourth Commandment) God specifically patterns man's work week after his own original creational work week. Man's work week is expressly tied to God's: &quot;for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth&quot;(Ex. 20:11 ). On two occasions in Moses' writings this rationale is used: 

Exodus 20:11: &quot;For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.&quot;

Exodus 31:15-17: &quot;Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.&quot;

Dabney's comments are helpful: &quot;In Gen. ii:2, 3; Ex. xx:11, God's creating the world and its creatures in six days, and resting the seventh, is given as the ground of His sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day; why not the former? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak.&quot; 

(6) Argument from plural expression. In Exodus 20:11 God's creation week is spoken of as involving &quot;six days&quot;(yammim), plural. In the 608 instances of the plural &quot;days&quot; in the Old Testament, we never find any other meaning than normal days. Ages are never expressed as yammim. 

(7) Argument from alternative idiom. Had Moses intended to express the notion that the creation covered eras, he could have employed the term olam. Even the resting of God on the &quot;seventh day&quot;does not express his eternal rest, for it would also imply not only his continual rest but also his continual blessing of creation, as if sin never intervened: Genesis 2:3 -&quot;Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.&quot;[/quote:eb1e4e4942]
From &quot;Reformed Theology and Six-Day Creation&quot; by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. September 1998. 

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/gentry.shtml


----------



## pastorway

A candidate for Ordination at our church answered the question this way:

[quote:877d85181e][b:877d85181e]State your convictions concerning the creation/evolution debate, with Biblical reasons behind your beliefs. [/b:877d85181e]

As a Christian, I believe in creation. I firmly trust in God's account of the creation of the species rather than in the problematic theory of evolution. While it is logically possible to both believe in God as a first cause while also embracing the theory of evolution, one could not do so while believing in the God of Scripture. Evolution is incompatible with biblical Christianity. First and foremost, the whole counsel of the word of God teaches that death was the result of man's sin. Evolutionism teaches that death is a natural part of life, that death and struggle have always existed and actually led to man's existence. It claims that the fossil record points to an age long ago, billions of years before the first man. The fossils, however, are clear evidence of death - bloodshed on a massive scale. If all this bloodshed existed before Adam, the foundation of the Gospel is cut at its roots. The counsel of God's Word teaches that Adam sinned and then Paradise was corrupted. Death was the penalty of Adam's sin. As a result, sin, death, and suffering came upon not only Adam but also the entire world he had ruled, including his offspring. Jesus Christ came as our Messiah to save sinners and conquer death. He did &quot;taste death for everyone&quot; (Heb.2:9). Ultimately, He will restore Paradise where there will once again be life with no death. The notion that death existed billions of years before man's existence directly contradicts the Bible's account that death was the penalty for the first man's disobedience. 

The idea of &quot;theistic evolution&quot;, which attempts to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution by expanding the 6 days of creation to six long ages, appears as ludicrous to the true believer of evolution as it does to the true believer of the word of God. The insurmountable problem of the &quot;six ages&quot; theory is that the order of God's creation is all wrong for evolution. Plants were created on day 3 whereas insects were created on day 6. Evolutionary theory teaches that flowering plants and pollinating insects evolved together through mutual benefit. Evolution says that stars existed before the earth while Genesis says that the earth and its plants (day 3) existed before the stars (day 4). Evolution claims that the first living things were sea organisms (day 5) while Genesis teaches that full-blown land plants were first (day 3). Evolution claims that Earth's plant life produced our oxygen-rich atmosphere, but Genesis teaches that Earth's life-supporting atmosphere was created before the plants on day 2. 
Evolutionary theory also claims that fish evolved long before the first fruit tree, whereas Genesis reveals that God created the fruit trees on day 3 and the fish on day 5. Evolution also teaches that man has been carnivorous, or at least omnivorous, from the beginning. God, however, did not sanction meat eating until after the great flood (compare Gen.1:29 with 9:3). 

There are compelling Scriptural reasons why we must interpret the six days of Creation as literal twenty-four hour days. The Hebrew word yom is translated &quot;day&quot; in Genesis chapter one. All of the uses of yom elsewhere in God's Word mean a literal twenty-four hour day when prefixed by a numeral adjective as it is in the first chapter of Genesis. Yom without a numeral adjective infrequently means a distinct period of time such as in Isaiah 17:7: &quot;In that day man will have regard for his Maker, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel.&quot; However, yom is prefixed by a numeral adjective here, and the repeated reference to &quot;evening and morning&quot; after each of the creation days makes it all the more clear that these are to be understood as literal days, not ages. I can conceive of no way that God could have made it any more obvious that He was describing normal twenty-four hour days. The phrase &quot;evening and morning&quot; is repeated after every single &quot;day&quot; in Genesis 1. 

The most compelling reason for accepting the days of creation as six twenty-four hour days comes not from Genesis but 
from Exodus. Here, we learn that God created in six literal days for a specific purpose. God worked six days to provide an example for man to follow. The Bible says: 

[i:877d85181e]&quot;Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.&quot;[/i:877d85181e] (Ex.20:9-11) 

The Hebrew word yamin which above is translated &quot;days&quot; is used some 700 times in the Bible and has never even once meant anything other than literal days. Yamin is the word used above in both verse 9 which refers to the 
literal days that man &quot;shall labor&quot; and in verse 11 which refers to the six literal days of God's act of creation. That God created in six yamin, in six literal days, is indisputable here. The above passage was written in tablets of stone directly by God Himself (Ex.24:12, Ex.31:17-18, Deut.9:10). God was indeed mindful of man from the very beginning. The whole reason for God creating in six literal days was to provide an example to man as revealed to us in the Ten Commandments. 

Every measurement we have for the passage of time is regulated by some natural cycle or some division thereof except for the week, which has no rational explanation outside of Scripture. The day which we divide into hours, minutes, and seconds is governed by the earth's rotation. The months are governed by the orbit of the moon around the earth. The year is governed by the orbit of the earth around the sun, and its seasons are governed by the tilt of the earth's axis as it makes its orbit around the sun. The week is governed by nothing in all creation but by the Creator alone. Inexplicably to secular anthropologists, the seven day week is universal among all human calendars. Uniquely, the week was given to us as an example to follow by God Himself, and it points as both a sign and a reminder to His sovereign act of creation. The Ten Commandments were spoken by the voice of God and written in stone by the finger of God. Scripture does not get any more inspired than that! Thus the &quot;days&quot; of 
creation must be taken literally. To do otherwise is to blaspheme God by calling Him a liar and to mock rather than honor the Sabbath. 

When it comes to the six literal days of creation, God left even the greatest skeptic among us with very little choice. For we know that He Himself said it by His own voice, and we know that it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18). The big question that Adam and Eve were asked was, &quot;Did God really say . . .?&quot; After they questioned His word, they fell. That seductive serpent the devil still asks, &quot;Has God really said?&quot; Did God 
really say &quot;in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them&quot;? While today's liberal theologians answer in the negative, I join the chorus of orthodox Christian believers who emphatically answers in the positive. How one answers determines not only one's view of holy Scripture but also one's relationship to the God of holy Scripture. 
[/quote:877d85181e]

That pretty much sums it up!

Phillip :saint2:


----------



## Puritan Sailor

An excellent summary Pastor Way! EJ Youngs book on Genesis 1 is also good too. 

Puritan Sailor


----------



## twogunfighter

This one is too easy. #1 is the only logical answer. All others just require too much twisting.


----------



## doulosChristou

Ditto. Six natural days. 

I wasn't aware that both the Hodges' and Warfield caved on this point. I recently discovered that James M. Boice caved as well. Sad. The denial of creation in six natural days is a slippery slope down to many other areas of unbelief. Take female pastors, for instance. I'd be surprised to find any &quot;churches&quot; with women elders who did not also deny the six day creation account. A lot of apostasy begins there.

In Christ, dC


----------



## LawrenceU

'Evening and morning'

That defines a normal day; not some age or epoch.

Six literal days.

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by LawrenceU]


----------



## The0

I can oly imagine the incredible activity that took place during those six days! It must have been quite a sight! I'm sure that angels stood in awe and adoration as they saw their Creator prepare this planet for human habitation.

Blessings.


----------



## fredtgreco

This is very interesting to me. It kind of surprised me (pleasantly) to see that the overwhelming majority of members here take a natural day view.

I'm curious, would either person who took a different view car to explain why?


----------



## Craig

Have you guys hear of Starlight and Time by Dr Humphrey?

I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:fa6d3cc166][i:fa6d3cc166]Originally posted by Craig[/i:fa6d3cc166]
Have you guys hear of Starlight and Time by Dr Humphrey?

I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too. [/quote:fa6d3cc166]

I have found Ken Ham and his collegues in the Creation Research Institute to be very helpful. They do approach things from a more scientific approach, but always with the intent to make sense of the evidence in light of the biblical record, which I think they do a remarkable job at doing. And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry.


----------



## Craig

[quote:dba396ce4f]
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:dba396ce4f]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I &quot;need&quot; scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:153e02815b][i:153e02815b]Originally posted by Craig[/i:153e02815b]
[quote:153e02815b]
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:153e02815b]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I &quot;need&quot; scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture. [/quote:153e02815b]

I liked that article too 
I hope they can get some more work done on that aspect of science. In my mind astronomy is the only &quot;hole&quot; left in the creation side of the debate. The evidence we use is the same as the evolutionists. But how to best interpret it in light of the biblical record, that is the challenge.


----------



## knight4christ8

I hold to a literal 7 days. But just out of curiosity is there some texts that you can suggest on the following matter: Adam was created prior to Eve. Adam also, to my understanding, named all of the creation in the same day that he and Eve were created. Is this possible based upon the knowledge that we have of Adam's capabilities. Or am I even remembering and understanding these accounts? :question:

Thanks,
Knight


----------



## cupotea

*hmmmmm...*

I have submitted my mind to 6 literal days...very reluctantly, though...

I was an ardent follower of, shudder, Hugh Ross. I went from an Old earther (when I first got saved...I didn't even have a problem with Genisis from a Long Creation point of view...) to a rabid young earther (mid Christianity) to discovering and adhearing to Hugh Ross who seemed to destroy ALL of the Young earth arguments while purporting to hold to an &quot;evalgelical&quot; literal interpretation...I now have submitted my brain to the tennents of the WCF and the 6 literal days.

I have submitted my rather scientific brain because of some of the arguments and warnings I have heard from Reformed Theologens...but in doing so, I still have the occational question break through my wall of subjection and dog me in the middle of the night. Hugh Ross showed how all of the arguments for a young earth are founded on junk science and were a joke to the scientific comunity. He showed that one could hold to a literal Genisis acount and still hold to a &quot;several billion year old&quot; universe. His arguments convinced me and I saw very clearly that the young earthers were making many errors in their interpretations of both science and the bible...

That being said, I have taken the hugh ross stuff and placed it in submission to men who are better expositor than I. Though men of God's interpretaions are not equal to sola scriptura, I deem their study of Hebrew better than mine...their arguments better than mine and I cast my lot in with them in submission to wiser men than I. 

Debates where scientists volley equations back and forth are not for me to enter in on. Debates where certain Hebrew words are qualified by numerals in front etc. are not for me, but to watch and wonder and place my hand over my mouth. hopefully I can appear wise by keeping out of the debate. I do choose though, to side with the views in this room and with the warnings given me of the ramifications of interpreting the days in Genisis as long periods of time.

Mess with Forensic Justification and I'll bite yer head off... 

Love in Christ,

David Stair

PS:Arminians love Creation Science because they think that men can be argued into the kingdom of God...Reformers focused on the Guilt of sinners before a Holy God. Athiest Scientists will not be won over by equations, but by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Proof of the Bible's infalibility will come AFTER conversion...not before it!! It is a trap to focus too much time and energy on Physics...I guess I'm more interested in the Physics of the Soul before God (apologies to any Phyisisists reading this...)


PPSS I take this issue seriously becasue my dad is a Forensic Anthropologist who specialises in the study of OLD graves. I tried to get him on carbon dating as a Young Earther and he slaughtered me making me look like a fool. If us &quot;laymen&quot; try attacking a scientists views on Carbon Dating ,Speed of light or age of stars we will look like fools. Tread very carefully and realize there is nothing crueler than a scientist scorned by some &quot;Young earth creationist&quot; trying to mess with Physics to prove that the earth is under 7 thousand years old. Unless you're Ken Ham, Stick to the law of God and the fact that God created the stary host and has made a time of judgment when He will burn the elements with fervent heat...Preach Christ and Him Crucified...no Physics in that...only hope!!!! :thumbup:


----------



## blhowes

Dave,
I'm curious about the views of those who hold to the several billion year old universe theory. I assume that they believe in evolution, with God guiding the process along the way. What I'm curious about is what they teach about Adam? 

I applaud those who can challenge the ideas of the evolutionary scientists. I agree that challenging them about scientific ideas is best left to those who are better trained in the sciences.

A friend (Kurt Wise) of mine, who use to attend the same church as me, is a paleontologist. One thing I respect about him is his intellectual honesty with regards to the creation/evolution debate - he's just as critical of many of the creation science ideas that are put forward as he is of evolutionary thought. As I think of his reasoning abilities in the sciences and look at the battles he's involved in, I'm very comfortable letting people like him fight those battles. I think God has others for me to get involved in.

Bob


----------



## luvroftheWord

Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that?


----------



## knight4christ8

My only reply to that LuvrofthWord is that your belief seems to imply limit to God. I hope that I do not offend you, but why else would you believe this way. God could create what He created in any period of time and there is no reason that God would have taken longer. ? ? ? 

Knight uzzled:


----------



## cupotea

*whether billions of years is enough time...*

One of the points that Hugh Ross makes which I still find quite compelling is that (Macro)evolution is still quite imposible even with a 15 billion year old universe.

(Macro)Evolution is mathmatically impossible...it goes against all of Physics and goes against the laws of the universe 15 billion years or not!!! The thing that Hugh Ross is trying to point out is that Evolution is not possible no matter what lenghth of time you hold for the age of the universe. A 4 billion year old world is not much longer than 7000 years...in terms of Mathmatically speaking...of the chances of life beginning or the big bang happening compared to the length of time needed to have the Universe just happen. What I'm saying, and I've said too much, is that the chances of the universe happening the way &quot;Evolutionist&quot; Scientists say is something so astronomically imposible that it boggles the mind.

Hugh Ross still advocates Adam and Eve and the fall. He believes that there was &quot;death&quot; in the sence that animals bruised and chewed grass...biologically speaking...for food to be eaten death must occur...if an animal scratches itself or has fur, dead cells are involved. His point is that the Fall of man was Spiritual death before God...death occured where as Savior is needed. The other death where cells die as part of a natural process (and is a good and nessasary thing for enjoyment of life), Hugh Ross says, MUST have occured. I've heard Hugh misquoted that he advocated death occured before the fall, but in context this is true, but he being taken out of context, is made to say something he does not belive. ( I hold no view on this as I am not a scientist)

His view is that there were hominid like creatures before the fall of Adam who were apes and that God created species after their &quot;kind&quot;...no evolution except &quot;micro&quot; and that about 6-7 thousand years ago God created Adam and then Eve the way Genisis literally tells it. It is quite interesting and made perfect sence to me.........but like I previously posted, I am but a stupid man and not a scientist nor a Hebrew scolar. I will leave this one, &quot;to the Doctors...&quot; as Luther put it.

as for the Junk science that was disproven by secular scientists...I am embarrassed by it and will witness to scientists using the guilt of man before a holy God...

Love in Christ,

David Stair


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:8c1690de2b][i:8c1690de2b]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:8c1690de2b]
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:8c1690de2b]

Craig,

Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry. :wink1:

[b:8c1690de2b]Very[/b:8c1690de2b] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:



[*:8c1690de2b]It does not allow the text to speak for itself. In every other instance in which the word [i:8c1690de2b]yom[/i:8c1690de2b] is used with a numeral, it means a normal day. This is part of the reason why the natrural day view was the unanimous (or near unanimous) view of the divines
[*:8c1690de2b]It causes great problems for Exodus 20 for the 4th commandment; which correlates the day of God's rest with the Sabbath
[/list:8c1690de2b]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

You may correct me if I'm wrong here David, but I thought that Hugh Ross also didn't believe that Noah's Flood was a world wide flood, only a local flood. Do you have any info on that? 
This is one area where I think many problems are resolved in the &quot;dating&quot; debates. Evolutionists all agree there was some sort of catastrophe way back, but none will admit it was Noah's Flood. Interesting I think....

Puritan Sailor

p.s. Who decides what an &quot;old earth&quot; looks like anyway??? How do we know what an old earth looks like if all we've seen is this Earth? Too many assumptions for me to swallow an old earth view. I think the scriptural accounts works just fine for me


----------



## cupotea

*about Hugh Ross*

This guy really irks a lot of people. Apparently Ken Ham has debated him and has been said to have won the debate, but Hugh Ross makes this same debate available on his web site claiming victory for himself.

Hugh Ross debated another fellow on James Dobson and the young earth guy came off looking like a loudmouth boob who kept interrupting Hugh Ross! It was disgusting!!


I was really into Hugh Ross untill up to 2 years ago, subscribing to his newsletter and holding his views on Astrophysics. I have found that the &quot;young earthers&quot; do not actually understand or explain what Hugh Ross and his teachings actually are. As a follower of his teachings I could see pretty quick when he was being misrepresented and it was FREQUENTLY!!! This made me all the more against young Earth Creationsim. I was vehemently opposed to it and was convinced that young earth creationism was error upon error of the very worst of junk science! Again and again I got into discussions with people who argued SAME junk science as if they all read the same books. They were reading the same books...the very ones that I had read as a young earther! Their position was pretty clear that those who held to any position but the Henery Morris Position were liberal or worse. It was difficult to get very far in discussions. 

None of the issues that Hugh Ross brought up about the false science of "young earthers" was ever dealt with and worst of all...ALL the &quot;young earthers&quot; I talked with acted as if they were geophysicists and Astrophysicists, not just like me, a layman. They talked about Hebrew words for "day" as if they had spent years of study, but again, they were just like me...someone who had an interest in the subject but an absolute layman. Somewhere these people were being taught a very unchristian way of presenting their position in debate.

I find nothing more revolting than having someone try to convince me of a position that I have already held to...especially when I try to tell them that I was a ardent supporter of their position.


Since coming to Reformed Theology and the WCF, I have decided that I have been back and forth on the subject so many times that I would STOP. My experiences with the junk science and the adhominem attacks on both sides of the issue has kept me from doing anything more than deferring to the scientists and the doctors of Hebrew. I am a layman who has read a couple of books. I wish more of us could take this position...because to the ACTUAL doctors of Hebrew and the ACTUAL Astrophysicists, we look like boobs. As I have posted above, I hope none of us actually come head to head with a REAL scientist and think we can argue on his turf.



AS for the Flood... Hugh Ross believes that ALL human beings were destroyed from the earth save Noah, His wife and his Sons and their wives. His arguments are based on scripture and geophysical evidence. He says that the evidence is of a massive flood but not for a worldwide flood. He presents evedence for a local flood but not one that made the earth a ball of water. His book was compelling and again, I don't think many people read it as much as launched attacks against Hugh and those who do not hold to the "Young Earth/Henry Morris" position. I will only say that Hugh Ross seemed to me to be evangelical holding to an absolutely LITERAL position. But so does everybody in this debate...I'm sure the devil would even claim this....


Anything that is presented by those who say they represent the Author of truth should be truth. It gets pretty bad when the "Scientific evidence" for Creation Science is shoddy and easily disproved by the secular scientific community. 

Love in Christ,

David Stair


----------



## pastorway

[quote:4c21c9d351][i:4c21c9d351]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:4c21c9d351]
[quote:4c21c9d351][i:4c21c9d351]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:4c21c9d351]
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:4c21c9d351]

Craig,

Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry. :wink1:

[b:4c21c9d351]Very[/b:4c21c9d351] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:



[*:4c21c9d351]It does not allow the text to speak for itself. In every other instance in which the word [i:4c21c9d351]yom[/i:4c21c9d351] is used with a numeral, it means a normal day. This is part of the reason why the natrural day view was the unanimous (or near unanimous) view of the divines
[*:4c21c9d351]It causes great problems for Exodus 20 for the 4th commandment; which correlates the day of God's rest with the Sabbath
[/list:4c21c9d351] [/quote:4c21c9d351]

It attacks the truthfulness of the Word of God. Why are we so surprised that the devil is asking the same old question, 'Did God really say?&quot; He asked it in Genesis and got away with it and he is still pulling the same stunt..asking about the Book of Genesis itself, &quot;Did God really say?&quot;

(You know too that when Eve answered the serpent she added to God's Word!! Read the account!!Legalism reers its head...adding to the Word of God!!)

Grammatically, textually, historically, and scientifically - the 6 natural days of creation as recorded in Genesis is the only defensible position about how we got here!

You know, thinking about it, if we destroy the truthfulness of Genesis, we lose the soveriengty of God, the fall of man, original sin, the inherited sin nature, and the protoevangelian (Gen 3:15) in just the first three chapters! If we can lose the fall we lose the redemption of fallen man in Romans 5 and the gospel has been destroyed!

I would only add further, if you read the account as written, and see what was created on which day, scientifically nothing works but the natural day as an explanation of how long creation took. 

In the beginning - Earth and Heavens (universe) 
Day 1 - Light
Day 2 - The atmosphere (exapnse or firmament)
Day 3 - Dry Ground, Oceans gathered, Plants
Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars
Day 5 - Sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - Animals, insects, Man
Day 7 - Rest

One example that defeats the &quot;ages&quot; idea - imagine (and it would be vain imaginings!) plants without sunlight or insects for &quot;ages&quot;. It is physically impossible! 

Once you deviat from the text as it is written you call God a liar! There is no other road to take. God said what He meant (as He reiterated in Exodus 20) or He lied. If He &quot;did NOT really say&quot; then we should believe the devil, for he is right!!!

:shocked2: :saint2:

Phillip


----------



## cupotea

*pastorway...*

I am familliar with the arguments from the &quot;young earth&quot; point of view...but as I posted above, I don't think you understand Hugh Ross's position. A good book to read is &quot;Creation and Time&quot; by Him. He is sincere (wrong??) but he is at least owed the respect of being represented corectly. He adresses ALL of the &quot;Young earth&quot; positions from Hebrew to the errors in their science. It MUST be addressed by the &quot;young earth&quot; position or guys like me will be left in limbo.

My position on debate is to know your opponent so well that he is able to &quot;amen&quot; all that you say about him. We should be able to have our opponent say, &quot;I could not represent my position better than you have stated it back to me...&quot;

Love in Christ,

David Stair

Limbo is a terrible place to be left for someone who loves science AND the bible


----------



## cupotea

*aaaaannnnnnnddddd......*

In rereading your post, Philip, I see the same mistakes that gives me the heebeegeebees (sp?). I am interested with the Truth and my heart aches with longing for the correct way of reading Genisis. I also want to enjoy Astrophysics again..... 

I came to Genisis as a new believer having absolutly no problem reading it from a 4 billion year old point of view. I had NEVER heard of Creation Science and saw clearly the awesome hand of God creating The universe and all life. I was in awe of Genisis and it was so very clear and profound to me.

It was not untill about 2 years later when I was introduced Henry Morris did I become a &quot;rabid&quot; &quot;young earther&quot;. I was convinced by the &quot;scientific&quot; evidence. (I was NOT a scientist, though!) I studied and fully believed what Henry Morris taught. I was also told about the &quot;other&quot; so called christians who raped and twisted the scriptures so they could be both evolutionist and Christan. These poor scientists were so brainwashed by evolution that they invented all sorts of theories to get around the &quot;clear&quot; teaching of scripture. I had been brainwashed by evolution and the lies of so called science. I was told that we can't trust science becasue it is all polluted by evolution...only &quot;Creation Science&quot; was pure and untainted by the proganda machine of evolution.

Another 2 years passed and I stumbled upon a book that was by this Hugh Ross fellow. In his book, &quot;Creation and Time&quot; He took ALL of my arguments from the young earth position and showed how they had been disproven...many of them in the 50's and 60's...by secular science. Some of the science about light curving in the Universe had actually been found to be manipulated equations and were a LAUGHING stock by any serious Astrophysicist. He also showed how the bible did not need the help of &quot;junk &quot; science and could stand on it's own against the irrefutable evedence of Astrophysics. He showed that there was no need to apologise for the bible's account for creation. He showed how completly perfect Genisis' account of creation was and how it lined perfectly with modern science. There is no need to afraid of science as God is in fact the author of math/Physics and Chemistry. Science, if anything, should show the order and perfection of God's Universe...Hugh Ross has tried to show this in his book. 


I was shocked....and more shocked becasue I was really studying young earth science as hard as I was becasue I was about to take on my Dad who is a Forensic Anthropologist (CSI anyone??). Thank God that I did not go to him and try to argue him into the Kingdon of heaven with faulty science.


Hugh also devotes half of this book to looking at the Hebrew word for &quot;Day&quot; and works through it as thouroughly as I had seen any comentator do! Hugh Ross is serious and gave me compelling evidence to belive that The Universe is 15 billion years old and the earth 4-5 billion years old. He also is very pasionate about the bible and is 100 percent evangelical. He insisists on a literal interpretation of the scriptures and devotes this book to this literal view. He does not dance and I was convinced by what I though was clear evedence.

I shake my head because I have not been convinced otherwise but have instead chosen to have no view. I toss my hat in with the framers of the WCF trusting in their scolarship in interpreting the days of creation. THis is painful because the &quot;Creation Science&quot; side has done a horrible job of countering Hugh Ross's work! They attack his charactor and not his facts...misrepresenting Hugh Ross and his teachings and in so doing attack me!!!!!

I have kept saying that I will defer to the Doctors and Astrophysicists, but I am NOT defering to Heritics! (as Luther was not doing when he appealed to his lack of knowledge in defering to the doctors).

I am all for throwing out something false and standing against heresy...but what I have read from the &quot;young earth&quot; side is a false description of what Old Earth Creationists belive. A strawman argument does not hold up in court and does not strike the winning blow in convincing me!!

I don't mean to single you our Philip, but your last post is exactly what I have seen over and over. I guess I'm thick, but it is not &quot;obvious&quot; to me, as you say, and I am quite frustrated. Unless you can accuratly present what Hugh Ross's position is and counter his views, you are not going to convince the scincere seekers.

I say all this as respectfully as I can, but this issue really hits home. I have been tossed back and forth on this one and I am seasick!!!! I desperatly want to belive in a 6 day creation acount!!!

Love in Christ,

David Stair


----------



## Puritan Sailor

David,
What exactly are you talking about? What &quot;science&quot; in young earth science is &quot;junk?&quot; What makes Ross's view so appealing specifically? I agree there is weakness in the young earth arguments regarding astrophysics, but when it comes to biology and geology I have found them to be top notch. Could you perhaps cite some examples of your concerns? 

My understanding has been that we all have the same evidence, creationists (old and young) and evolutionists. The issue is interpretation of the evidence. For us, it is interpreting the evidence in light of the Scriptures. Science can only tell you what it observes. It cannot tell you what happened 7000 or 15 billion years ago because no one was there to observe it (except God). Science can tell us in great detail how the world works today, but once they get into origins it is not science anymore, it is speculation. Then it comes down to which view makes the most sense of the evidence. Would you agree with this so far? 

Puritan Sailor


----------



## cupotea

*actually...*

when you look through a telescope you are seeing the past. This is the issue raised by Hugh Ross. You are actually looking at the ancient past and not as events are actually happening.

I'm a layman...AS for the appealing nature of Hugh Ross's work...it made sence to me and I know little!! I would advise you to read Hugh Ross's book adn let his work speak for itself. I'm getting hives as I type this!!

I guess I'm the little guy who sits on the side and gives his imput and then is unable to defend his position....all I can do is defer you to Hugh Ross to see why I spoke up.

There are different views on the Age of the earth and it was interesting to see it from their perspective. AS I stated previously...&quot;We should be so familliar with the other side's position that they comend us for doing our homework on their position!!&quot;

I have not seen Hugh's position accuratly represented by the &quot;young earth&quot; position. That is my main point. 

Love in Christ,

David Stair

[Edited on 10-13-2003 by daviddaviddaviddavid]


----------



## Guest

Old or Young . . . . both possible. .. . 

We do not have sufficient data to say when or how ? ? ? 



Job 38 :: New International Version (NIV)


The LORD Speaks 

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 

2 &quot;Who is this that darkens my counsel 
with words without knowledge? 
3 Brace yourself like a man; 
I will question you, 
and you shall answer me. 

4 &quot;Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? 
Tell me, if you understand. 
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! 
Who stretched a measuring line across it? 
6 On what were its footings set, 
or who laid its cornerstone- 
7 while the morning stars sang together 
and all the angels shouted for joy? 

8 &quot;Who shut up the sea behind doors 
when it burst forth from the womb, 
9 when I made the clouds its garment 
and wrapped it in thick darkness, 
10 when I fixed limits for it 
and set its doors and bars in place, 
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; 
here is where your proud waves halt'? 

12 &quot;Have you ever given orders to the morning, 
or shown the dawn its place, 
13 that it might take the earth by the edges 
and shake the wicked out of it? 
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; 
its features stand out like those of a garment. 
15 The wicked are denied their light, 
and their upraised arm is broken. 

16 &quot;Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea 
or walked in the recesses of the deep? 
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? 
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death ? 
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? 
Tell me, if you know all this. 

19 &quot;What is the way to the abode of light? 
And where does darkness reside? 
20 Can you take them to their places? 
Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 
21 Surely you know, for you were already born! 
You have lived so many years! 

22 &quot;Have you entered the storehouses of the snow 
or seen the storehouses of the hail, 
23 which I reserve for times of trouble, 
for days of war and battle? 
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, 
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, 
and a path for the thunderstorm, 
26 to water a land where no man lives, 
a desert with no one in it, 
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland 
and make it sprout with grass? 
28 Does the rain have a father? 
Who fathers the drops of dew? 
29 From whose womb comes the ice? 
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 
30 when the waters become hard as stone, 
when the surface of the deep is frozen? 

31 &quot;Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? 
Can you loose the cords of Orion? 
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons 
or lead out the Bear with its cubs? 
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? 
Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? 

34 &quot;Can you raise your voice to the clouds 
and cover yourself with a flood of water? 
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? 
Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 
36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom 
or gave understanding to the mind ? 
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? 
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 
38 when the dust becomes hard 
and the clods of earth stick together? 

39 &quot;Do you hunt the prey for the lioness 
and satisfy the hunger of the lions 
40 when they crouch in their dens 
or lie in wait in a thicket? 
41 Who provides food for the raven 
when its young cry out to God 
and wander about for lack of food?


----------



## cupotea

*let me put a hand over my mouth....*

we need an emotion for this action....


----------



## wsw201

Would anyone consider holding to the Day/Age view of creation an exception to the Westminster Standards?


----------



## sastark

*Theories and Science*

This is from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary (www.m-w.com):

[quote:6a70a091e4]
[b:6a70a091e4]scientific method[/b:6a70a091e4]: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses [/quote:6a70a091e4]

All theories concerning the origin of the universe, light, space, earth and man are not scientific! They cannot be reproduced or observed (at least not by us). They are theories and belief systems. The question then becomes, which belief system do you believe? The Bible, which clearly teaches the God created all things in six normal days of light and dark and rested the seventh day OR man-made theories which either twist Scripture or deny it all together. Choose you this day whom you will serve! As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

[Edited on 10-13-2003 by sastark]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:7d4cedaeae][i:7d4cedaeae]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:7d4cedaeae]
Would anyone consider holding to the Day/Age view of creation an exception to the Westminster Standards? [/quote:7d4cedaeae]

I do. It does not prevent a man's ordination in my mind, but it is clearly not what the divines taught or believed.


----------



## sastark

[quote:54821d1823][i:54821d1823]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:54821d1823]
I do. It does not prevent a man's ordination in my mind, but it is clearly not what the divines taught or believed. [/quote:54821d1823]

Fred,

Could you explain why you believe this should not prevent a man's ordination? Thanks!


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:f2a712f872][i:f2a712f872]Originally posted by sastark[/i:f2a712f872]
[quote:f2a712f872][i:f2a712f872]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f2a712f872]
I do. It does not prevent a man's ordination in my mind, but it is clearly not what the divines taught or believed. [/quote:f2a712f872]

Fred,

Could you explain why you believe this should not prevent a man's ordination? Thanks! [/quote:f2a712f872]

I don't believe that an incorrect doctrine of the length of days should [i:f2a712f872]of itself[/i:f2a712f872] make a man unfit for the ministry. When ordaining a man, we should look at the whole man and judge whether or not he will be profitable to the church. This issue is not a important as others. But I would not want to lie or pretend that the Westminster divines intended framework or day age when they did not.

It is also very likely that most men who hold to a day-age view do not allow the logical consequences of that view to tarnish their doctrine of the Sabbath.

Thank God for inconsistencies!


----------



## sastark

[quote:f31b56f943][i:f31b56f943]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f31b56f943]

I don't believe that an incorrect doctrine of the length of days should [i:f31b56f943]of itself[/i:f31b56f943] make a man unfit for the ministry. When ordaining a man, we should look at the whole man and judge whether or not he will be profitable to the church. This issue is not a important as others. But I would not want to lie or pretend that the Westminster divines intended framework or day age when they did not.

It is also very likely that most men who hold to a day-age view do not allow the logical consequences of that view to tarnish their doctrine of the Sabbath.

Thank God for inconsistencies! [/quote:f31b56f943]

But can the incorrect doctrine of the length of days ever really be [i:f31b56f943]by itself[/i:f31b56f943]?

Also, how could some one who denies creation (by &quot;creation&quot; I mean the six-day view) be profitable to the church as a pastor or elder?

Lastly, the logical consequences of denying six day creation are more than just an unbiblical view fo the Sabbath. To say that God took millions of years (or several &quot;eras&quot; or &quot;ages&quot; ) to create means that things had to have died before Adam's sin. Therefore, the wages of sin is not death, for death existed prior to sin.

[Edited on 10-13-2003 by sastark]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:fe3b673e66][i:fe3b673e66]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:fe3b673e66]
Would anyone consider holding to the Day/Age view of creation an exception to the Westminster Standards? [/quote:fe3b673e66]

Yes.


----------



## cupotea

*hmmmmm*

&quot;Lastly, the logical consequences of denying six day creation are more than just an unbiblical view fo the Sabbath. To say that God took millions of years (or several &quot;eras&quot; or &quot;ages&quot; ) to create means that things had to have died before Adam's sin. Therefore, the wages of sin is not death, for death existed prior to sin. &quot;


By death...what do we mean. For Biologically death occurs all the time. Hair on animals or scales on fish are actually dead cells. For animals to chew grass or even to bend grass causes death. Infact millions of cells die at every movement of our muscles or when we touch something.

In the Garden of Eden....did Adam's fall bring on death between him and God as well as cellular death or was their no cellular death of any kind in the garden of eden...meaning that there must have been a completly different structure to life as we know it. Was an animal the same animal in the garden of eden as today?...if it was, then it was covered with hair, nails and muscles all composed of dead or dying cells. If it ate at all, then cellular death occured when plants were broken down in the digestive system of the animal. Biologically speaking...death must have occured in the Garden before the fall or there would have been an increadibly different way of physics and living. 

If there was cellular death and the plants and animals were similar to what we have today, then there was death (in the biological/cellular sence) before Adam Transgressed the Law of Works.

Did Adam become Totally depraved before a Holy God, or did Adam introduce cellular death into God's creation? both?? If He did both, then the animals in the Garden, as well as Adam and Eve were completly different from the human's and animals of today. 

An animal that does not have dead cells making up it's fur is a truly extrordinary animal. I think it would be interesting to have living cells making up your hair...would be trippy.


My own view is that Adam died and became guilty before a Holy God in the Garden of Eden. God then slaughtered two animals and provided the skins as a covering for them...saving them from His wrath. To speak about the nature of cellular death changing goes beyond the clear teaching of scripture. Why, Why, Why would we read anything more into Genisis and God's account of creation. It opens so many cans of worms. why worry about it as the issue is God's judgment upon Adam and us in Him! The real issue is Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the atonement!!! the Protevangel!!

I again would appeal to people to step back from retooling science (or the &quot;ologys&quot; of today) and focus on the clear teaching of the text. God does not ask for a defence as to what went on in the garden, nor does he need us to defend against the potential of cellular death taking place before the fall. Man fell and became guilty before God. That Is the issue! Beware lest bariers are placed infront of the cross because of our pride. God's word still clearly cuts if cells died in Eden.


AS for the &quot;choose this day whom you will serve&quot; nonsence...as for me and my house we SERVE the Lord. As for the length of God's creation days, &quot;In essentials unity, in Nonessentials, Liberty, but in all things charity!&quot; My salvation is not at stake because I am not sure of the Hebrew workings of the word Day. God said it and I belive it...if you ask me how long, I will read from the scriptures to you and it will say , &quot;and the evening and morning were the first day&quot; I believe it! It says it clearly right there in the passage...it's enough for me.

Love in Christ,

David Stair


----------



## Puritan Sailor

&quot;An animal that does not have dead cells making up it's fur is a truly extrordinary animal. I think it would be interesting to have living cells making up your hair...would be trippy. &quot;


I think the Bible is refering to a different &quot;death&quot; than this


----------



## cupotea

*I hope that I am being taken in the right spirit...*

I realize that this is a contravertial subject and I don't want to step on anyones toes. I sure hope that I've not offended anyone here by my posts ( I may have bored them, though...)

I love everyone man, I really do! I agree with everyone and hold whatever position everyone else does. 

hee hee

AS for cellular death...I just don't know??!

I got in over my head because I'm taking Anatomy and Physiology and my test on cellular anatomy is on Wednesday. Please pray for me!

Love in Christ,

Davey boy 
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

{edited excessive use of smilies! :saint2:}

[Edited on 10-14-03 by pastorway]


----------



## sastark

David,

Thanks for your reply, but I think you (carefully) avoided the question: Did death occur before Adam? You talk about cellular &quot;death&quot;. Is that a biblical way to refer to the cellular &quot;life cycle&quot;? Are cells ever alive? Genesis 1:30 (NKJV) says: [i:1685c2797a]&quot;Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food&quot;; and it was so.&quot;[/i:1685c2797a]

I think this verse creates a contrast between animal life and cellular &quot;life&quot;. Animals (beasts, birds and creeping things) have life. They were to eat things that do not have life (green herbs). Perhaps you have accepted a false classification of cells as &quot;living&quot;. 

So, I ask again: was there death before Adam? Or did God miraculously sustain all those beasts, birds, and creeping things through the &quot;ages&quot; of Genesis 1? When God killed the animals to make tunics of skin for Adam and Eve, how old were the animals? One day old? Or one million (billion) years old?

Are the wages of sin death? Or not?

Also, as for there being a difference in the creation pre- and post-fall, ABSOLUTELY! It's called &quot;the curse&quot; for a reason! Adam's sin had (and continues to have) very real, measurable affects on all of creation. Just ask your wife! (or any woman who has given birth). Also, the above mentioned verse makes it sound as if there were no carnivorous animals before the Fall (God gave them the herbs to eat, not each other). Afterwards, obviously there are carnivorous animals.

All this is to say, the Fall has more than Spiritual consequences. The physical creation was affected by Adam's sin.

One more thing - you are right that the real issue is Christ. But why did Christ have to die? Was it to make possible the way to eternal life? Why don't we all have eternal life already, without Christ? Why do we (physically) die? Is it because of sin (ultimately)? Or is there another reason? If death is not the result of sin (in other words, if death occured before Adam), then man ought to be able to find a way to prevent death. There must be a pill, or an operation or a fountain of youth that we can take of to have eternal life. If death is not the result of sin, then we do not need our sins forgiven and we do not need Christ. You are correct that Christ is the real issue. And Christ being the real issue makes creation and the Fall a real issue as well.

PS- I'll be praying for you in your upcoming tests.


[Edited on 10-14-2003 by sastark]


----------



## knight4christ8

I also believe that hloding to the days/ages view is contrary to WCF standards. G. I. Williamson has a good commentary on this in hsi study guide and there is a NEW EDITION coming out in November.

Knight :wr50:


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:77bb909a2d]
My only reply to that LuvrofthWord is that your belief seems to imply limit to God. I hope that I do not offend you, but why else would you believe this way. God could create what He created in any period of time and there is no reason that God would have taken longer. ? ? ?
[/quote:77bb909a2d]

I never said God couldn't create the world in six literal 24-hour days. He is certainly capable of creating the world in a millisecond. My question was simply concerning why it is that people get so upset over those who aren't convinced that a 6 24-hour day framework is the correct one. It seems to me that if you deny evolution and affirm special creation &quot;in six days&quot; (whatever that means) then there should be no qualms over it or concerns about going against the WCF or anything like that. I think that the outspoken proponents of the various views today, particularly the 24 hour day vs. the Framework Hypothesis debate in Reformed circles, could be more cordial and respectful of one another's convictions.

As for my own view, I am still undecided.


----------



## JohnV

Thank you for fixing that up Dave. It makes it so much more readable. 

I would like to respond to your concern as well. But I realize that you do not wish to make any of this an issue. I would just ask what you are presupposing in suggesting that life without death before the Fall was impossible. But only if this helps you figure out your own misgivings, seeing as how you are a science student.


----------



## cupotea

When we all get to heaven!!! I can't wait to understand and comunicate as I should....


----------



## fredtgreco

*Days & Exceptions*

As for our discussion about exceptions and ordinations wih respect to days of creation, Wayne has posted an excellent article by Lig Duncan in another thread - click here.

This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at. Dr. Duncan's recitation of the [i:a3b2e0d095]statis certaminis[/i:a3b2e0d095] is exactly what I have found, and what I worked on in the minority report to the PCA GA in Dallas (2001) with David Hall and a few others.


----------



## twogunfighter

*A questions for those actually care about science*

As I have said before, I believe in a young earth but.....

My daughter was asking how old the dinosaurs were while we were looking at their bones in Colorado/Utah last week and I did not have an answer that made sense to me. 

Does anyone have a good explanation or website that explains how come we have dinosaur skeletons that appear to be millions (billions?) of years old even though the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old? Also what is the accepted creationist explanation for why the dinosaurs died out? The flood? Did dinosaurs even ever exist or are they some hoax drawn up by a nabob that found three large vertabrae, a femur, and a clavicle? 

I've never really cared about these issues before but now would like to find out what the answers are.


----------



## sastark

[quote:fae75a8425][i:fae75a8425]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:fae75a8425]

Does anyone have a good explanation or website that explains how come we have dinosaur skeletons that appear to be millions (billions?) of years old even though the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old? Also what is the accepted creationist explanation for why the dinosaurs died out? The flood? Did dinosaurs even ever exist or are they some hoax drawn up by a nabob that found three large vertabrae, a femur, and a clavicle? 
[/quote:fae75a8425]

Great questions! As one who really cares about science, I'll try to give you an answer.

GOD MADE IT THAT WAY!! 



Just kidding! I'm prepping for when I have kids.  That's gonna be fun! (although I feel sorry for the kids).

On to my real answer:

First, websites:

Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp)
Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/- look for articles with &quot;Dinosaur&quot; in the title)

Second, explanations for dinosaurs dying out:

The most common held theory is global climate change after the flood. I tend to agree with this theory. Basically it goes like this: prior to the flood, earth's climate was more tropical, and therefore more temperate (possibly due to a water canopy enveloping the planet). During the Flood, this water canopy came crashing down, helping to cover all the land in water (see Gen. 7:11 the &quot;windows of heaven&quot; being opened could be a reference to the water canopy). After the flood, the climate was harsher than before, in part due to the fact that this water canopy, which had helped moderate the climate, was no longer there. Dinosaurs could not survive in the harsher climates and began dying out (those which were on the ark in the first place, obviously the vast majority of them were killed in the Flood).

Some other thoughts:

What was on the ark?
I doubt Noah had two Tyrannosaurus Rex on the ark. I doubt there were any bracheosaurs. From the skeletons we have found, it just doesn't seem possible. What Noah had were probably infants. So, two infant dinosaurs are all that come off the ark. What are the chances of them surviving? (If I were Shem, Ham or Japheth, having grown up with full sized dinosaurs running around, these little lizards would be the first thing to &quot;accidentally&quot; get stepped on. )

What if there wasn't a canopy?
Ok, maybe there wasn't a canopy (although, I tend to believe there was). Another possible explanation for dinosaurs dying out could be that they were hunted into extinction. Nimrod became a mighty hunter before the Lord (Gen. 10:8-9). I realize there is much to say about Nimrod (see The Two Babylons by Hislop), but who would be a more mightier hunter than a guy hunting down huge dinosaurs with a bow and arrow? Nimrod may have been evil, but he must have been one tough hombre!

Those are a couple of theories. I love talking about this subject (the Flood, dinosaurs, global climate change, etc), so feel free to bring on the questions/objections!

PS- I think dinosaurs really did exist, and may exist still (look at ICR's website for the article entitled &quot;In Search of the Congo Dinosaur&quot; or something similar to that).


----------



## twogunfighter

Thanks, I will check out the web sites and send questions upon getting more educated. Unless I get sidetracked by foreign affairs magazine......


----------



## pastorway

Understanding that the dinosuars were reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing until they die - THAT'S RIGHT, as long as a reptile is alive it is growing - and given the conditions on earth before the flood and after the flood...life spans were shortened and they did not have time to grow so large. 

Imagine how long a reptile would have lived in the days of Methuselah, when men were living into their 900's. That makes for a lot of years of growth.

So maybe the answer is that many fossils we have are indeed dinos that are now extinct, and maybe [b:bfb9e0ac9d]we have dino's with us today[/b:bfb9e0ac9d] that just don't live so long and as a result don't get so big.

Anyone seen Nessie in that there lock???

Phillip


----------



## vshagios

*6 Natural Days*

If your a Dispensational, you would say 6 &quot;24hr days is a literal reading.&quot;
If your a Policeman, you would say &quot;in six days the LORD made heaven and earth&quot;, its the law.
If your Walter Cronkite, you would say &quot;thats the way it is...&quot;
If your a child, you would say &quot;the bible tells me so.&quot;

As a Calvinist, I would say there is no logical, biblical, scientific, geometric or astronomic reason to believe otherwise.

Nice to meet you all,

VS Hagios


----------



## twogunfighter

Van

It took you a day/age to join....Go to the &quot;welcome&quot; forum so all can properly welcome you. :bigsmile:

Chuck


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:99a805bc0d][i:99a805bc0d]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:99a805bc0d]
Understanding that the dinosuars were reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing until they die - THAT'S RIGHT, as long as a reptile is alive it is growing - and given the conditions on earth before the flood and after the flood...life spans were shortened and they did not have time to grow so large. 

Imagine how long a reptile would have lived in the days of Methuselah, when men were living into their 900's. That makes for a lot of years of growth.

So maybe the answer is that many fossils we have are indeed dinos that are now extinct, and maybe [b:99a805bc0d]we have dino's with us today[/b:99a805bc0d] that just don't live so long and as a result don't get so big.

Anyone seen Nessie in that there lock???

Phillip [/quote:99a805bc0d]


If I remember right, the average size of the dinosaurs in the fossil record were about the size of a large dog. But, it's the big 'uns that make the money in the museums and movies so you don't really hear about the smaller guys.


----------



## cupotea

*that is a very interesting way to look at the dinosaurs..*

all the eggs of disnosaurs were very small...about the size of normal eggs of reptiles of today...so given a few hundred years for a alligator to grow...you would have a very large croc!

I believe! :grin::grin::grin:


----------



## LawrenceU

Two Gun,
Dating of fossils is primarily based upon two 'facts'. 

One is Carbon dating, which is incredibly unreliable. Once a pig tooth was dated and proved to be millions of years old. The only problem was that the hog was slaughtered two WEEKS prior to the dating.

The other 'facts' is an incredible loop based upon proximity. It goes something like this:

We know that the earth is billions of years old. This is evident because of the layers of sedimetary material in the earths crust (please ignore liquifaction as an answer!). These layers represent epochs of time. They are identified by certain dead critter remains from a given epoch that we find in them. Therefore, if we find a fossil lying in a certain rock bed that contains critter 'X' then we know it must be 'n' billions of years old because we are 'certain' that the 'given' critter is 'X' years old because it is the that strata of sedimentary material. (Any holes in that? Nah.)

What gives them fits, beyond the stupidity of the 'facts' of epochal age is the real FACT that these fossils are not consistent in their striation. They are all jumbled up. They even cross strata. There is ia fossilised palm tree I once saw, in situ, that is fairly intact. It is across three epochs of strata. That palm tree, according to an evolutionist, had to die, stay vertical, and not rot for millions of years as the earth around it slowly sifted its way up the trunk and the was covered and converted to stone.

[Edited on 10-25-2003 by LawrenceU]


----------



## kceaster

One of my elders has a picture that is awesome. He took it somewhere in Pennsylvania, I think. When they were making a highway through a certain part of land, they had to blast through, what looks like, limestone. You can see the strata clearly, but what is awesome about it is that the strata is curved.

It begins about 35 feet up on both ends and curves downward 15 or 20 feet in the middle.

Now, if a fossil is found on the edges, it will be considered &quot;younger&quot; than the ones found in the middle of that strata, when it was all formed at the same time.

Cool, eh?

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a &quot;test of orthodoxy&quot;, to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:980fa07833][i:980fa07833]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:980fa07833]
Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a &quot;test of orthodoxy&quot;, to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it. [/quote:980fa07833]

Because any other view calls into question the plain reading of Scripture (i.e. Exodus 20:11). Plus, the natural reading of the Gen 1 doesn't really allow for any other view. It's a narrative, not poetry or prophecy. There no hermenuetical reason to take it any other way than 6 natural days. 
Finally, we must remember the consequences of this slippery slope. If Gen 1 and 2 are just poetic expressions about special creation and didn't really happen the way it reads, then what about the rest of the narrative? Was there really a serpent who talked to Eve? That seems kinda stupid doesn't it? That must not have been a real serpent, it was a poetic way of expressing the appearance of evil. Oh, and since the days are not real days and the seprent not real, then were Adam and Eve actual people? Or is that just a poetic expression of how evil came into the world of men? 
The same logic which denies the literal days can also denie the reliability of the rest of the first 3 chapters in Genesis, thus destroying the very foundation of the gospel. Obviously you haven't gone that far, but I have yet to see a Framework or any other type of advocate adequately address the consequences of his views. Never forget also that the whole reason Kline devised his Framework theory was to &quot;free science from the constraints of Scripture.&quot; 

:wr50:
Patrick


----------



## DexCisco

A.W. Pink also bought into the Gap Theory:

[quote:d0310f4638]
We read in verse 2, &quot;And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.&quot; The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus: &quot;And the earth had become a desolate ruin, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.&quot; In &quot;the beginning&quot; the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2. [i:d0310f4638][b:d0310f4638]Between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some awful catastrophe had occurred-possibly the fall of Satan--and, as the consequence, the earth had been blasted and blighted, and had become a &quot;desolate ruin,&quot; lying beneath a pall of &quot;darkness.&quot;[/b:d0310f4638][/i:d0310f4638]

Sovereignty of God, Ch.4
[/quote:d0310f4638]


Concerning death before the Fall, here is an interesting question. Is not life on the New Earth going to be a restoration of creation to the way it was before the corruption of sin?

Will there be predation then? No. 
Will there be disease? No.
Will there be suffering? No.
Will animals eat plants? Yes.
Will people die? No.
Well, what if I fall off a cliff on the new earth? Are you saying that I will somehow magically not be injured? I don't believe it.

You see, many of the same arguments levied against no physical death before sin can also be aimed at no physical death [u:d0310f4638]AFTER[/u:d0310f4638] sin. We are living in a time of sin. A sin-cursed, death-ruled world is all we have ever known. I can't imagine an existence without the effects of sin and death any more than I can imagine and existence without time, because time is all I have ever known too. Yet, God exists outside of time. He created time. In the same way, this world originally existed without sin and death, and will one day exist again without sin and death.

The death refered to cannot simply be a spiritual death. There were obviously physical effects as well. Thorns, disease, pain, predation, and unless you think these are good things, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, meteor impacts, harmful solar radiation, etc. etc. etc. Adam and Eve were also ejected from the garden to prevent their access to the Tree of Life. If they had eaten of it, they would have lived forever. (Gen 3:22) But how could they live forever? Didn't their skin cells die? What if they ate of the Tree of Life and then fell off a cliff? The arguments for the constancy of physical death don't hold up here any better than they hold up pre-Fall or in the New Earth.
The death refered to obviously does not mean simply chemical decomposition. If there was no chemical breakdown before sin, Adam would not have been able to digest food. Nor can you equate the death of an animal with the death of a skin cell. There is an obvious distinction between &quot;life&quot; that was alive (animals) and &quot;life&quot; that was &quot;for food&quot; (Gen 1:29-30)


A thought for TwoGunFighter: How does a 4,000,000 year old dinosaur appear different than a 4,000 year old one?

David: Have a look at Starlight and Time by Humphreys as a possible explanation of how stars really can be actual history without altering the speed of light or the light being &quot;deceptively&quot; created in transit. I agree with you whole-heartedly that logical argumentation will never save anyone, but can it not be a tool to support the authenticity of the scripture and remove arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God? We apologetically defend the manuscripts and the canon, why not Creation, the Flood, Bable, the Exodus, the Cross, the Resurrection? Surely, though, we should be focused on preaching the Gospel, not on proving the Gospel. There comes a point when we can do no more.
Thanks for the information from a actual Ross supporter. I hope you don't feel alienated or ganged up on.

Tons more I could say, but no time to say it.


----------



## fredtgreco

Dex,

Only one question. If someone dies in glory (that is when &quot;after sin&quot; is) what happens to him?

And how would that square with Hebrews 9:27?

[quote:e7b9661263]
And as it is appointed for men to [b:e7b9661263]die once[/b:e7b9661263], but after this the judgment
[/quote:e7b9661263]


----------



## JohnV

Craig:

[quote:0e6ecbd876][i:0e6ecbd876]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:0e6ecbd876]
Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a &quot;test of orthodoxy&quot;, to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it. [/quote:0e6ecbd876]
The reason that I object to it is that the Framework Hypothesis does not come out of Scripture, but comes from outside of Scripture; and is formulated and compared so that it may fit into Scripture. The fact that it fits in is not sufficient to replace what comes out of Scripture. The Bible does not compel us to believe the Framework Hypothesis; rather the hypothesis tries to compel us to read the Bible differently. There needs to be a heap, a giant heap, a humongous heap of evidence for that, not just a hypothesis.

In fact, the Framework Hypthesis, if it is correct, may not be in the Confessional church, because it is not a doctrine derived from the infallible Word. But then there is a very real problem of what to do with doctrines, like the Ten Commandments, that utilize the six-day creation scenario. 

The FH may sound very plausible to some, but I just cannot see how people can be comfortable with the Bible referring to a three day creation as a six-day occurence, no matter what the genre may be. And I cannot see how a denomination can accept the FH on a confessional basis. And I am from the OPC! uzzled:
:wr50:


----------



## DexCisco

[quote:8b48e30332]
If someone dies in glory (that is when &quot;after sin&quot; is) what happens to him? 

And how would that square with Hebrews 9:27?[/quote:8b48e30332]

Fred,

That is exactly my point. Perhaps I was not clear that some of those questions were rhetorical.

[quote:8b48e30332]And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
[i:8b48e30332]Heb 9:27,28[/i:8b48e30332][/quote:8b48e30332]
No Sin] -&gt; Fall -&gt; Sin &amp; Death -&gt; judgment -&gt; [No Sin

Sin only exists between the Fall and the judgment. Death (physical and spiritual) is a result of sin. Therefore, death (physical and spiritual) only exists actively between the Fall and the judgment. That means that death is non-existent both after the judgment [b:8b48e30332]and[/b:8b48e30332] before the Fall. It doesn't make sense to say that death existed in the sinless world before the Fall, but it will not exist in the sinless world after the judgment.

From our perspective it is difficult to say what exists as a result of sin and what exists as a part of God's original creation. This is because we have only ever experienced the two together; God's perfect creation along with the damage done to it by sin. The only external perspective we have is scripture. If scripture says that death is an enemy and an intruder into God's perfect creation, then I have to believe that this world once existed without death. Also, if this world will one day be recreated and restored to its original sinless condition, then I have to believe that it will once again exist without death. Can I explain how it might functions in terms of thermodynamics? No. Do I know the exact extent to which death has affected this universe? No. However, the relationship between sin and death is pretty clear, and if sin is done away with, its consequence, death, will be as well.

[Edited on 11-26-2003 by DexCisco]


----------



## fredtgreco

Dex,

Sorry I was confused. I guess we agree!


----------



## New wine skin

It is comforting to know I am in the midst of brothers who also believe the historical authory of scripture!
My vote is for a literal 6 day creation. I happen to disciple and teach worldview and biblical creation to youth at my church. As Luther said, High school can be compared to the gates of Hell. Its a battle for the mind, and Satan is always whispering &quot;did God really say...?&quot; I personally do not need to know how God did it, but for the sake of being prepared to defend my faith while witnessing to the lost, they often ask hard questions relating to creation. As the Answers in Genesis ministry so clearly points out, millions of years attacks Genesis 1-11, of which is the foundation of the cross. All biblical doctrines have their foundation ultimately, directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The doctrine of marriage, why we wear cloths, the reason Jesus came to die on a cross, why there is death in the world, why man has dominion over the earth... these things are dependent upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. We can't selectively choose what is or isn't literal based on how the world thinks or whether something is easy to reconcile or not. 
Men such as Scofield and Chalmers have done a great disservice to the body of Christ by allowing compromise of the Historical authority of scripture. That being said, I don't believe a person is not &quot;saved&quot; because they hold an old earth view, but I would say by not taking a stand on this issue they have allowed the foundation of scripture to be shaken and they have added to or taken away God's word perhaps unknowingly, depending on how much influence and compromise has occurred. I am often reminded of King Saul and the examples when he doubted God's word or usurped His authority because of circumstance. I will say that folks like Dr Hugh Ross (Progressive creationist) are endanger of being handed over to a depraved mind and seared conscience, if he is not already. An example of Progressive creationist belief from Hugh Ross is that the fall of man had no effect on creation and death existed before sin entered the world. To me this is Heresy! The selective eisegesis of old earth creationist reminds me of how the RCC birthed such dogma of days old (ex. how they &quot;justify&quot; apostolic succession or purgatory). I know some learned men with advanced degrees of science will flame me for believing God's word is literal, but my testimony of His grace in my life can cause me to do no other. To the learned men I say the only absolute truth is God's word and this is the view you should start with to understand creation. Man cannot live by bread alone, but by the very word of God, and that includes Genesis 1-11! Amen 

I hope my brief comment helps someone some where who wonders why this is an important topic to the modern day Puritan. I am always happy to share insight on this subject, but there are many excellent ministries who have websites, or books that cover basics. I say that, so as not to clog puritans mind with this highly controversial topic. 

Blessings to all 
Scott 

:wr50:


----------



## luvroftheWord

Well, I think Futato and Waltke would disagree with your assessment that their view does not come from Scripture.  Kinda sounds like some things said in the paedo/credo debates.


----------



## DonnieHendrix

*6 days of Creation*

[quote:58a3c88f83][i:58a3c88f83]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:58a3c88f83]
The six days of creation described in Genesis 1-2 are best described: [/quote:58a3c88f83]

Yes I agree although I believe there could be some time before the start of day one. I believe there could be something to the gap theory.

Blessings,
Donnie


----------



## LawrenceU

The gap theory has death entering the world before sin. Historically it is merely an attempt to 'reconicle' the fossil record with scripture. The problem is that the need for reconciliation is only necessary when one interprets the geological column according to a presupposition based upon evolution. The gap theory also states that there was a pre-Adamic race (Neandrothals and such). The entire theory is based upon bad science and even worse theology.


----------



## 2legit2quit

[quote:b1d4feac09][i:b1d4feac09]Originally posted by New wine skin[/i:b1d4feac09]
It is comforting to know I am in the midst of brothers who also believe the historical authority of scripture!
My vote is for a literal 6 day creation. [/quote:b1d4feac09]

Honestly, this seems to imply that if you don't believe in six literal days you don't hold to the authority of scripture.

I think this is misleading, because I, although I haven't studied these things as much as I want to, honestly believe that six long periods of time is consistent with the Hebrew reading of Genesis one. However, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But from your statement above, it seems that you are saying because I hold to this *wrong* view of scripture, then I am somehow undermining the authority of scripture in a most grievous way. But if you are saying that I am doing this because I have a wrong interpretation of scripture, or because I am using a source outside of scripture to interpret scripture, doesn't everybody do that at some point or another. I mean I don't know of anybody who believes that they never do this. To say that you never do this is to say that you have an absolutely perfect understanding of scripture. I doubt that you would say that you have a perfect understanding of scripture.

If you admit to the above then you either have to say that nobody believes in the authority of scripture, or that you can hold to the authority of Scripture even if you have a wrong interpretation of what scripture says.

Another note: I honestly think, like R.C. Sproul, that sometimes science does correct the church and its interpretation of Scripture. One only has to remember the Copernican revolution and Galileo for an example of this. For years everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe and they tried to use scripture to support that. However once it was discovered that the earth wasn't the center of the universe everyone's view of scripture changed. Was this an example of the church undermining the authority of scripture, or was it an example of the church using science to interpret scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:8d62d319cd][i:8d62d319cd]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:8d62d319cd]
I honestly think, like R.C. Sproul, that sometimes science does correct the church and its interpretation of Scripture. One only has to remember the Copernican revolution and Galileo for an example of this. For years everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe and they tried to use scripture to support that. However once it was discovered that the earth wasn't the center of the universe everyone's view of scripture changed. Was this an example of the church undermining the authority of scripture, or was it an example of the church using science to interpret scripture. [/quote:8d62d319cd] The view that Galileo's battle with the Roman Church was a &quot;classic case&quot; of open-minded science vs. hidebound biblical interpretation is itself open to much debate. For one thing, the central issue at stake in this battle was pontifical, not biblical, authority. And furthermore, the issue Rome was contending for was the Thomistic synthesis of Greek religion and cosmology (cosmology is a fundamentaly religious concept) with biblcal religion and cosmology. The Roman church had already compromised itself by rejecting a [i:8d62d319cd]purely[/i:8d62d319cd] biblical cosmology. The underlying currents were power and influence. The big contest was between Rome's court-party scientists defending the establishment position and rival scientists like Galileo. When we compare today's battles to ones from old times, its important to see beyond superficial similarites. 

ALSO (!) starting Saturday the OPC GA began looking at their committee's work on the Creation issue. So far (Monday morning), the OPC website doesn't have much info on the nature of those deliberations.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*News Update, and comment*

The following is from the OPC website, updates on the GA in progress. As of the end of the day on Saturday:[quote:fd8987d994]Questions concerning the report of the Committee on Views of Creation were addressed, and then the first recommendation of the report was moved. During the course of the afternoon, several amendments were offered; some were adopted. As of the end of the afternoon, the pending recommendation stood as follows:

That the General Assembly recommend that presbyteries should expect a ministerial candidate to articulate his view on the days of creation with a proper recognition of the hermeneutical, exegetical, and confessional considerations involved. The following kinds of questions should be used by presbyteries when examining a candidate, whatever his view of the days of creation, in order to show that his doctrine of creation is consistent with Scripture and the subordinate standards:

A. Does the candidate affirm the following and can he articulate what he understands by them:

1. creation [i:fd8987d994]ex nihilo[/i:fd8987d994]
2. the federal headship of Adam
3. the covenant of works
4. the doctrine of the Sabbath
5. the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture
6. the historicity of the creation account

B. Does the candidate understand and affirm the priority of Scripture in the relationship between special and general revelation?

C. Does the candidate understand and affirm the hermeneutical principles that are expressed in Scripture and in the subordinate standards?

D. Is the candidate able to address and refute the errors of the theory of evolution both exegetically and theologically?

E. Can the candidate articulate and affirm the covenantal structure of the plan of redemption as found in Genesis 1-3?[/quote:fd8987d994] Observations:
1) The issue was still before GA at the order of the day, Saturday evening. The issues may have already been decided for this year as I write this, but not necessarily. 

2) GA needs our prayers as they tackle this issue. There are many good and godly men gathered there, prepared to take very seriously this matter. I think the majority of them believe the same things that are held by the majority on this board. But they are steering a freighter, not a waterscooter. 

3) The outcome will not please everybody. No matter what it is. But I am glad that the church is unwilling to simply roll along as if these issues were not timely, or needing attention. I'm glad that [i:fd8987d994]something[/i:fd8987d994] is worthy of rejection! At least the recognition that evolution is incompatible with sound biblical exegesis is being maintained. 

4) Don't expect a GA statement on the &quot;confessional meaning&quot; of the days of creation. As nice as this might be, the OPC is not going to (in essence) add a new page to the confession parsing its meaning. Certain ones already read what they want into the unambiguous language of the Confession. Trying to tighten the language has at least as much chance of opening loopholes as it does closing them. 

5) GA advice on [b:fd8987d994]what questions to ask[/b:fd8987d994] is [i:fd8987d994]good[/i:fd8987d994] advice (if it is adopted). Don't slight it. Often men with poor views (or no view!) slip by presbyteries who never even ask the questions necessary to permit them an adequate perception of a man's position as he is compelled to articulate it. Some presbyters might even feel intimidated and not ask &quot;embarrasing&quot; questions of a candidate because the issue is peceived to be unnecessarily devisive. But now GA is (hopefully) acknowledging that these are good and necessary questions, [i:fd8987d994]all impacted[/i:fd8987d994] by a man's veiws on creation. Now a presbytery should have fewer excuses for turing blind eyes to the implications of a man's theological position.

6) I would like to see an [i:fd8987d994]explicit question[/i:fd8987d994] that addresses the matter of [b:fd8987d994]Death Before the Fall[/b:fd8987d994]. This matter is more than incidental to the biblical doctrine, OT and NT, of creation. The issue is realted to the Covenant of Works, to Adam's federal headship, the historicity of the creation account, etc. But I would like to see the issue stated baldly. The &quot;fiat acts&quot; of creation should be emphasized. Again, this issue is incidental to questioning a man's position on evolution, but not explicit. 

I'll close for now.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Bruce I agree with your observations. Having watched a few examinations in presbytery I find it interesting that at least here, holding to an anological view of the days is not considered an exception to the Standards despite the obvious meaning of the phrase &quot;in the space of six days.&quot; I guess only time and education can really fix this problem from our end.


----------



## JohnV

Patrick:
What scares me about the Analogical view is that it have secondary effects on the Standards. It is technically within the Standards perhaps, but it opens to door to equating differing views not founded on strict Scriptural interpretation, such as the Analogical view and the Framework Hypothesis, to the regular six-day schemata. There may not be enough evidence from Scripture, according to these views, to draw the strict six-day view, but the other views force the arguments somewhat. 

Dont get me wrong; I think that revelation in creation is also perspicuous. We do need to account for natural facts. But I don't see either the Analogical theory or the Framework Hypothesis arguing the necessity from nature, or even from logic, but only from possibility. And that is not the same thing as drawing conclusions from the assumptions of Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:78fd8f3141][i:78fd8f3141]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:78fd8f3141]
Patrick:
What scares me about the Analogical view is that it have secondary effects on the Standards. It is technically within the Standards perhaps, but it opens to door to equating differing views not founded on strict Scriptural interpretation, such as the Analogical view and the Framework Hypothesis, to the regular six-day schemata. There may not be enough evidence from Scripture, according to these views, to draw the strict six-day view, but the other views force the arguments somewhat. 

Dont get me wrong; I think that revelation in creation is also perspicuous. We do need to account for natural facts. But I don't see either the Analogical theory or the Framework Hypothesis arguing the necessity from nature, or even from logic, but only from possibility. And that is not the same thing as drawing conclusions from the assumptions of Scripture. [/quote:78fd8f3141]
What is even more scary to me is the fact that the historic meaning of the Confession on this point is being completely ignored and twisted to allow something which it normally would not. And this is also happening in other areas. It is a sign of decline in the OPC really. Not saying were there yet, and hopefully after this GA the presbyteries will have some more ammo to handle disciplinary and ordination exams regarding creation and other important issues i.e justification.


----------



## 2legit2quit

[quote:99298197cb][i:99298197cb]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:99298197cb]
The view that Galileo's battle with the Roman Church was a &quot;classic case&quot; of open-minded science vs. hidebound biblical interpretation is itself open to much debate. For one thing, the central issue at stake in this battle was pontifical, not biblical, authority. [/quote:99298197cb]

I was talking about the church in general. Although I will grant to you that the examples I cited are mainly in the context of Galileo's battle with the church *Authorities*, I think you missed the point of my argument. My point was that the church *as a whole* believed the earth was the center of the universe, and the church along with Rome used Bible verses to support their position, so I think my example still holds. 

I dont think that to say the six *days* of creation are long periods of time is to reject the authority of Scripture, even if it is wrong.


----------



## JohnV

Ryan:

Do you mean that the church as a whole thought the earth was the physical centre of the universe, or the spiritual centre? If I am not mistaken, the cultural understanding during most of the middle ages was that there was a confusion in the relation of the two. It was the old theological nemesis of the nature and grace relationship. In actual fact, though, the intellectual culture paid little attention to the physical reality, attributing much of its significance to spiritual allusion and teaching. Nature was allegorical for spiritual teaching. 

If this is true then for them it was not so much a result of scientific speculation as it was spiritual speculation that the earth was the centre of the universe. In a sense we are going through the same thing again with Hawking's theories. He has spiritualized the entire universe again after his physics paradigms, only with another god in the centre, one that is rooted in his thought, not in reality itself. After trying to understand his two popular books, I have come to the conclusion that his concepts differ very little in over-all theory from the middle ages, where the earth is again the default centre of the universe because of its spiritual significance. Certainly the details are quite different, but doesn't, for example, the observation that everything is rushing away beg the question, &quot;From what location?&quot; And where else is this being observed from than from the earth? So in upholding our modern evolutionary doctrines, our scientific speculations are again more spiritual than they are scientific, it seems to me. 

And this brings us full circle to where this impacts upon the church. Hence the concerns many of have for the directions our churches seek to follow. At least the Middle Ages had an excuse, in that they had little astrological knowledge compared to today. In our day we find ourselves in a different kind of Middle Ages because of the overwhelming knowledge at our fingertips, and little resource to make sense of it all. Meanwhile the churches are forming doctrinal theories based in part upon speculative and spiritually-based scientific theories. Or, at least, they are speculating in the vacuum left in the wake of the demise science's bold optimism. Either way, the church is showing itself a product of the time, rather than a prophet of revealed truth.


----------



## LauridsenL

I really didn't expect my first post here to be on such a controversial topic - or to be so long. Let me first say that as Christian believers we can and must agree that every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and thus that no genuine facts discovered by science can or will contradict or disprove any of Scripture. However, I respectfully urge caution lest we as Christians (myself included) opine on matters of which we have little knowledge, and cause the false appearance of &quot;disputes&quot; between Scripture and science. 

Anyway, my real point is that I think the poll choices may be too limited; there is another possible alternative: I'm intrigued by the possibility that the six days of creation discussed in Genesis 1 and 2 refer both to a literal six-day period (as measured by clocks from God's perspective outside of the earth/universe) AND simultaneously to a long period of time (as measured by &quot;clocks&quot; on earth). In other words, perhaps the six days in Genesis 1 and 2 is BOTH six 24-hour days (roughly) AND a long period of time at the same time (pun intended). Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity demonstrates that &quot;time&quot; is not the same for all &quot;observers.&quot; Time is not absolute but literally can vary depending on the reference frame of the &quot;person&quot; observing time, including relative speed of motion, and clocks run much slower as one approaches the speed of light. That is why extremely accurate atomic clocks in space orbit fun faster than clocks that remain on earth. In short, the two clocks, though synchronized at one point, do not agree on the amount of &quot;time&quot; elapsed for the same events. 

The point is that we should be cautious when getting in debates about how much "time" has elapsed since the creation of the universe. When we ask the question, &quot;how old is the universe?,&quot; perhaps we should first ask: which clock (or from whose perspective!) are we using? A &quot;clock&quot; on the planet earth (i.e., from man's perspective)? Or some other clock from another frame of reference outside of the earth or even from outside the universe (i.e., a clock from God's perspective)? In short, if I understand special relativity correctly (and I confess that I have only a lay understanding) a clock on earth which began recording time at the creation of the universe would not record the same amount of &quot;time&quot; elapsed since creation as would a clock in a totally different reference frame. That is, the earth clock might read billions of years before man was created on the &quot;sixth day,&quot; while God's heavenly &quot;clock&quot; recorded or observed the period as &quot;six days.&quot; (Notably, until man was created on the sixth day, there was no reason for God to discuss time from the earth's or man's perspective.)

God may have given us a clue about this possibility in Hebrew term &quot;yom.&quot; I know that there's a debate about whether yom is used in Scripture to refer both to 24-hr days and to ages, but I don't think there's any dispute that yom CAN have both meanings, at least in non-scriptural contexts. In any event, I'm even more intrigued by the possibility at that the very moment man was discovering evidence that, measured from clocks on earth, the universe is billions of years old (e.g., "seeing" light from very distant stars), God -- in His magnificent grace -- allowed man to discover that &quot;time&quot; is a much more elastic and mysterious concept than we could ever have imagined. I think it's possible that God is saying to scientists - "Don't use the fact that you know it took millions and millions of "earth clock" years for light from distant stars to reach earth to reject Scripture's description of the amount of "time" I chose to take to create the universe. You know that "time" is relative. I created and am bigger than time!&quot;

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## JohnV

Lee:
Welcome to the Puritan Board.

The problem with your idea is that it can also be used against itself. The idea of relational time is also devastating to the extended period theory. One is again forced to ask which time frame this applies to. But it also includes an interim time frame for the purposes of creation, something wholly unnecessary from a theoretical point of view, and certainly not Biblically justifiable.

Now, let me see if I can make my point here. Because God is God, He doesn't need anything. In order to create He did not need to set up an interim time frame, such a six-24hr-day clock that could coincide with eons of earth-day time. This actually creates another definition for [i:d89389b44e]yom[/i:d89389b44e], and that is neither founded on created norms nor Biblical ones; it is strictly theoretical. 

However, if time is referential, as you suggest, then by what standard do we hold that the &quot;years&quot; prescribed by the distance of the stars' light to reach us is actual earth-day years? Why should they be? That is [b:d89389b44e]our[/b:d89389b44e] reference of time, not the light's, moving at the speed of light. What makes the imposition of our reference on the movement of light unimpeachable? Again, theory oversteps authority.

The Word is unmistakable. It does not lie, and goes beyond our paradigms. If the Word says that God made the world in six days, in reference to the creation itself, then I think that that holds priority over men's best theories.

I see a three-tier hierarchy in the ideas we have on the creation: of first importance is the revelation from God (e.g. the Bible, and the creation ); of second importance is the revelation of God in creation (the unity of truth ); and of last importance is the theoretical necessity, but it needs to proven necessary from the preceding two (good and necessary inference. ) It transgresses the rules of thought (tier three) to circumvent these with theoretical possibilities that may coincide with revelation, but for which there is no true warrant or evidence. That is the problem I see with the Analogical Theory and the Framework Hypothesis. We do not want to equate theory with revelation.


----------



## LauridsenL

&quot;However, if time is referential, as you suggest, then by what standard do we hold that the &quot;years&quot; prescribed by the distance of the stars' light to reach us is actual earth-day years? Why should they be? That is our reference of time, not the light's, moving at the speed of light. What makes the imposition of our reference on the movement of light unimpeachable? Again, theory oversteps authority.&quot;

Thank you very much for your response. 

Let me make sure we're &quot;on the same page&quot; about the relativity of time. The point I tried (inartfully) to make is that science has demonstrated that time IS relative. And that's not just theory; it's been demonstrated with practical experiments. The reason scientists use the earth clock when measuring the amount of time it took for light to reach earth is that we have no other clock to use because we are on earth. But that doesn't mean that our clock is &quot;Absolutely Right&quot; in the sense that our clock reads the one &quot;true&quot; time elapsed for all reference frames. Other &quot;clocks&quot; from other reference frames (e.g., a clock near a black hole, or God's &quot;clock&quot; outside the boundaries of the universe) would measure different times for the same event. The point is that both would be &quot;right&quot; for observors from that reference frame. In fact, because of what we know about time, it is IMPOSSIBLE for measurement of time to be the same for two different reference frames. Indeed, the greater the difference between the speeds of two reference frames, the greater will be the divergence between the readings of the clocks on those two reference frames. (As a reference frame approaches the speed of light, elapsed time slows very dramatically.) In short, this simply means that time is not the absolute, one-size fits all concept that we innately believe from observation in our reference frame.

Concerning your point about theory and authority, I don't see anything in Genesis or other Scripture that tells us one way or the other about whether time is &quot;Absolute&quot; across all reference frames. God tells us that He created the earth in six days. I believe that firmly. But He doesn't tell us what clock He used to measure the six days. Not surprisingly, ego-centric man assumes that it has to be the earth clock. 

I'm not saying that I'm definitely right about this, though I think we certainly should approach discussions concerning time with a great sense of humility, awe, and trepidation. God has demonstrated to scientists that His creation is much more complex and surprising than could be imagined not too long ago. I am concerned that most Christians who have never even heard about scientific discoveries concerning time dilation sound like &quot;flat-earthers&quot; to scientists and it's frankly not a good witness. And, unless someone can show me from Scripture that scientific discoveries concerning the relativity of time are in error, it's unnecessary.

BTW -- contrary to the assumption of many Christians, discoveries in physics in the past 100+ years have actually caused a &quot;crisis of faith&quot; among non-believing physicists. Until that period, scientists generally believed that the universe is infinite (i.e., has always been in existence). The implications of discoveries concerning time, space, and light have demonstrated that, just as God says in Genesis, the universe had a sudden and very dramatic beginning point at creation, which of course implies a Creator. One result has been that there are more believing physicists than in many other scientific disciplines, though some physicists desparately are still hoping to demonstrate that the universe had no beginning (without any success of course!) (E.g., some have hoped to show that the universe forever has expanded and contracted and the current universe is just in an expansion phase; this has been widely rejected because it's been demonstrated mathematically not to be possible.)

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## JohnV

Lee:

In another thread, a while back, I showed my ignorance concerning modern scientific theories. I just don't understand them for all the effort I've put into trying. Maybe it's because I concentrated on the Hawking constructs. But for all that, there are two basic things that spring out in my way of thinking: one, that so-called scientists, who are actually theorists, can see amazing things, things that even the most detailed microscope or telescope cannot expose, and yet they do not see the most basic and obvious detail of all, that God exists. (This is also pejorative, I admit, for not all scientist are the same. But I refer to generally accepted theories based on modern science, such as the idea of the relevance of time. ) For every detail has that attribute, visible to the naked eye. So I question the objectivity of these scientific theories. It doesn't mean that I automatically think they are wrong, but I do think that they have to be proven to someone who knows and sees God. I don't want them to overwhelm us with hordes of followers who believe, for that doesn't convince; I don't want them to do all kinds of acrobatics to show consistency, for that doesn't convince either. Nor am I suggesting that lack of convincing power is automatic error. All I suggest is that the Word cannot be wrong.

The six-day, 24-hour scenario is not ego-centric. It is the plain rendering of Scripture. The charge of ego-centricity is merely pejorative, nothing more. The normal reading of Scripture, consistent with itself, for faith and not for confusion, allows for some room for discussion, but not for any undermining of the basic precepts. That has already been discussed in this thread. The six-day scenario cannot be stretched to fit theories without indirect ramifications upon other Scriptural precepts. It is God who ties the days of creation to the regular weekdays in His decalogue, not man. That needs to taken into account, more than any &quot;proven&quot; theory that man has come up with.

And that brings me to my second concern. I have seen the evidences in the Hawking books for the relevance of time. And I am confused about it. He has a scenario about twins being subjected to two different time frames. When they meet again one is old and the other still young. He calls this proof of separate time frames. But there they are, at the same time again, together. For all that they have gone through, one is not standing beside the other in a different decade, or a different day, or even a different minute. They are again, by necessity, together. 

Now put that together with the notion that for the light of, say, Alpha Centauri to reach us takes one thousand seven hundred years. (I'm just going by a misty memory here, I may be wrong. ) But whose time are we talking about? We can't just assume that, if AC is 1700 light years away, and let's say it is the furthest star we can see, that the universe is at least 1700 years old. That is going by our time frame reference, and we have just proven that even in the life-time of one set of twins the time can make such a difference. How do we know what frame-reference to use for light? Yet the speed of light is deemed the true constant. But speed involves time and distance, the very things that our sciences have precluded in their theories, not God.

I know this sounds confusing, but they are obstacles that I just can't get over, for all that I try. God's Word is inviolable, but so is His revelation of Himself in creation. That cannot be dislodged from my thinking. The relevance ideas must be turned onto the scientific theories themselves, not on the truths God has revealed. Especially if these relevance theories are rght.

So you can see how, when we speak of ego-centric theory, it is actually &quot;objective&quot; science that suffers, not theology. And I am very leery of pasting fallible human theories upon Scripture for interpretive significance, because that violates basic rules of interpretation. It is just that that I see as problematic with modern theories coming from Christians who seem to want some other explanation than the normal six-day view, for I do not yet see a necessity for it. It is just possibility thinking so far, and should be kept there unless there is some real evidence for it.


----------



## LauridsenL

&quot;The charge of ego-centricity is merely pejorative, nothing more. &quot;

I apologize for using that phrase, especially without making myself clear. (I certainly wasn't referring to you by that statement; your posts reflect a Christ-like attitude on the issue and a real attempt to grapple with admittedly difficult concepts and issues.) Putting aside sin-based reasons why each of us might assume the clock is measured from man's perspective, I should have just said that we naturally assume a day = a day. Because man has always experienced time only in this reference frame, man natureally assumed that time is absolute and measured the same everywhere and in all contexts. It wasn't until God allowed man to discover things about electromagnetism, the nature of light, etc. that it became clear to those who studied these matters that time is NOT an absolute concept independent of the universe.

In any event, I'm not at all sure that we're understanding each other. I DO believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate. I DO believe that God created everything in six days, though I've tried to explain why that can be absolutely 100% true, while at the same time clocks on earth might measure the same events as taking a longer period of time. If anyone can demonstrate to me that Scripture precludes the scientific discoveries regarding time dilation, I'll bow to Scripture. Until then, however, I'll try gently to persuade Christians at least to try as hard as possible to understand science before asserting boldly that it is wrong or that it contradicts Scripture. (BTW, I also recognize that I may be wrong about the science and would be more than happy to be corrected by someone with a greater understanding.)

You are correct that many scientists contemptuously dismiss Scripture without any real thought. Unfortunately, I believe that part of the reason they do so is that so many Christians are dismissive of genuine scientific discoveries, while demonstrating they don't understand the issues at all. This leads many to assume a greater conflict between Scripture and science than really exists. Of course, the issue is very much complicated because scientists sometimes are wrong (particularly evolutionary biologists). 

Finally, I assure you that many scientists are believers; I know some of them, and have heard a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry give his testimony. It's fair to say that these believing scientists grieve over the poor witness many Christians make when they create the impression that it is not possible both to understand and accept genuine scientific discoveries and to believe in the integrity of Scripture. They know better.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion, but I also don't want to create any dissension or cause any problems.

EDIT: I should add that I just noted my signature includes my home church and thus want to make clear that I speak for myself only and do not speak on behalf of anyone else. I am trying hard to grapple with these issues as honestly,m sincerely, and humbly as I can. 

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## JohnV

Lee:

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was using your posts to make my points concerning the original issue of this thread, namely the different theories being raised as alternative to the six-day theory. 

There is more to it than science. I would say the same in the sphere of apologetics, that there is more to it than logical inference. I'm not trying to minimize them, for I hold them both in reference to God's revelation of Himself, and so are also inviolable in that context. 

My concern is what you alluded to in your last post about, &quot;unless someone can prove to me from Scripture....&quot; You, and many Christian scientists, have distanced youselves from taking science as the ultimate authority, but many have not. When science and Scripture are placed side by side, they witness the same truth. But some see contradiction, and prefer science to Scripture, because, they say, Scripture is interpretational, after all. I've seen people deny the plain meaning of Scripture based on that principle. Too many things have been let in the back door by way of good intentions, and seeming certainty.

In my view, we are decades, maybe centuries away from conclusive enough assertions which justify the Framework Hypothesis or the Analogical Theory. It is much too soon to be suggesting equal status to the six-day/24hr-day understanding that God has suggested in His decalogue. Modern science has not necessitated an unseating of the Confession's assertion. 

I would think that, as it is unfair to paint all scientists as ungodly and undermining of Scripture, so also it is unfair to paint all six-day advocates as unscientific, or flat-earth-ers. That is just not the case. There are some of us who have real concerns with the unity of real science and real theology. They just do not disagree, and God does not misstate Himself.

Again, Lee, I'm not saying that you are asserting these things. I'm arguing against what I see as a misplaced trust. I don't doubt yours. I believe in science, and I believe in logic. But I believe that I can trust my faculties in these disciplines only when I hold God's Word as supreme, and I bury my life in His presence.


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:23fbf4040a]My concern is what you alluded to in your last post about, 'unless someone can prove to me from Scripture....' You, and many Christian scientists, have distanced youselves from taking science as the ultimate authority, but many have not.
[/quote:23fbf4040a]


John,

It's been a very pleasant discussion with you. 

I don't disagree that many refuse to take Scripture seriously and thus too readily dismiss it because, they wrongly assert, it is too subjective. But as someone who believes completely in the utter integrity and supremacy of Scripture, I don't know how else to approach this issue than how I have. The unavoidable fact is that, although Scripture is not one bit inconsistent with any scientific truth, it does not expressly address all scientific truth. If scientists claim to have learned something that is beyond doubt contrary to Scripture, I'll certainly stick with Scripture. But if scientists discover something, can demonstrate its truth in practical experiments, and nothing in Scripture is genuinely contrary to it, I see no sense in rejecting it. Of course, the rub there is whether &quot;Scripture is genuinely contrary to it.&quot; That's why I invited someone to show me that Scripture demands that relativity is wrong, or even if not that the six days must be mean six calendar days as judged from all clocks in all reference frames. On what other basis should I judge? 

I first started thinking about this issue in college when I became a believer in a sudden and dramatic conversion (I was a convinced atheist who made fun of Christians). After God in His grace regenerated me, I knew that every Word of His is true and entirely consistent with any genuine scientific discovery. I remain convinced of that to this day.

Thanks!

Lee


----------



## 2legit2quit

[quote:d8949191ab][i:d8949191ab]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:d8949191ab]
Ryan:

Do you mean that the church as a whole thought the earth was the physical centre of the universe, or the spiritual centre? If I am not mistaken, the cultural understanding during most of the middle ages was that there was a confusion in the relation of the two.[/quote:d8949191ab]

I believe that the earth is the spiritual center of the universe along with those in the middle ages. However, although this might have been part of what the church believed in the middle ages, they also meant that the earth was the physical center of the universe. From what I remember Galileo himself thought thought that the earth was the physical center of the universe until he found astronomical evidence to the contrary. So I believe that I am justified in making that situation atmost analogous, or atleast similar to our current conversation. Sometimes science is used to correct the churches interpretation of scripture. 


[quote:d8949191ab]If this is true then for them it was not so much a result of scientific speculation as it was spiritual speculation that the earth was the centre of the universe. In a sense we are going through the same thing again with Hawking's theories. He has spiritualized the entire universe again after his physics paradigms, only with another god in the centre, one that is rooted in his thought, not in reality itself. [/quote:d8949191ab]

I am not a Proponent of Hawking's Theories or Theoroms, so I would agree with you. He uses imaginary numbers in his theoroms to avoid the conclusion that the universe has a beginning. He does this to avoid the logical conclusion that if the universe has a beginning it must have a beginner.

[quote:d8949191ab]...doesn't, for example, the observation that everything is rushing away beg the question, &quot;From what location?&quot; And where else is this being observed from than from the earth? So in upholding our modern evolutionary doctrines, our scientific speculations are again more spiritual than they are scientific, it seems to me.[/quote:d8949191ab]

Im not sure what you mean by *evolutionary* doctrines. This is an extremely vague term. If you are refering to the big bang theory as an evolutionary doctrine I think that this is a wrong description of the theory, but in any case, to say that the big bang theory is more spiritual than scientific simply becasue we get all of our data of the universe while observing the universe on earth is in no way analogous to the middle agers belief in the earth as being the spiritual center of the universe.


All of the above has gotten way off of the track. My original post had to with the charge that those who believe in progressive creation don't believe in the authority of Scripture. I think that this is absurd. While there could be progressive creationists who don't believe in the authority or innerrancy of the Bible, this does not mean that these are necessary for you to be a progressive creationist. I affirm that you can both be a progressive creationist and also believe in the athority and innerrancy of Scripture. What is more, i don't see this as even being a controversial manner. I think that it was originally proposed by the prominent creationists to serve as a scare tactic so that christians would be ardentally against anything that the creationists labelled as the foundation of atheism. Now I am just blabbering, I will stop now.:blah1:


----------



## JohnV

Ryan:
Are you referring to the statement,[quote:a2e689ef8f]I dont think that to say the six *days* of creation are long periods of time is to reject the authority of Scripture, even if it is wrong. [/quote:a2e689ef8f]?

I would think that the onus is on the progressive creationists to show that God definitely did not mean &quot;extended periods&quot; in the Ten Commandments. It is He, not man's interpretation, that combines the two, the creation days and the days of the week. We can't just assume that God only meant it allegorically. We have to hold out for either one if we can't tell from the text. But at the same time, we can't just raise up theories based upon speculation and think that they are equal in authority to Scripture. 

Remember that irrefutable scientific proof is only irrefutable until it is refuted. Not so Scripture. As someone who subscribes to the Belgic Confession, art. II, I would insist that truly founded factual information is as authoritative as Scripture, for it too is God's revelation. We do have to be very careful, though, what we call truly founded information. There is a lot of excess weight aboard what we call modern science. I tried to prove that above with the discussion on relative time, and how it impacts science more than it does theology. For it gets very little attention in our time. We still have many years of work to do in that area before we can see how it effects our theology. 

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from anything. As long as we hold the Scripture in our heart, and walk with God in our heart every day, both in devotion and in prayer, then we can both be sure that He will lead us into His truth, and not allow us to wander into myths. There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings.


----------



## 2legit2quit

[quote:b04a6bd02d][i:b04a6bd02d]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:b04a6bd02d]


I would think that the onus is on the progressive creationists to show that God definitely did not mean &quot;extended periods&quot; in the Ten Commandments. It is He, not man's interpretation, that combines the two, the creation days and the days of the week. We can't just assume that God only meant it allegorically. We have to hold out for either one if we can't tell from the text. But at the same time, we can't just raise up theories based upon speculation and think that they are equal in authority to Scripture. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

The dage/age creationist does not believe in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis one. He believes the semantic domain of the hebrew words in Genesis allow yom to *literally* be translated as a long period of time. Whether the making the claim that that definition within the context of the rest of the bible,including the ten commandments, is justifiable might be dubious.[/quote]

[quote:b04a6bd02d]Remember that irrefutable scientific proof is only irrefutable until it is refuted. Not so Scripture. As someone who subscribes to the Belgic Confession, art. II, I would insist that truly founded factual information is as authoritative as Scripture, for it too is God's revelation. We do have to be very careful, though, what we call truly founded information. There is a lot of excess weight aboard what we call modern science. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

I agree with you 100% on the above


[quote:b04a6bd02d]I'm not going to try to dissuade you from anything. As long as we hold the Scripture in our heart, and walk with God in our heart every day, both in devotion and in prayer, then we can both be sure that He will lead us into His truth, and not allow us to wander into myths. There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

absolutly!!!!


My main goal for giving my :wr50::wr50: to this discussion was to correct something that you didn't bring up. Someone made a passing comment saying that he was glad that there were people here who believed in the historical authority of scripture. Comments like that are totally uncalled for. i say this not because I am an old earther, because I disagreed with this when I was a young earther, but because to say that someone doesn't believe in the authority of scripture because they might not have an accurate view of a particular topic in scripture, is to say that nobady believes in the authority of Scripture. And if then nobody believes in the authority of scripture (i'm sure everyone believes atleast one thing that is contrary to scripture) then why do you even have to bother with saying that somebody who believes contrary to you on an issue of scripture is undercutting the authority of scripture, because everyone does it.
I hope that made sense.
anyway i had a good time talking about this. :thumbup:


----------



## Saiph

[quote:ec194850f8]
There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings. 
[/quote:ec194850f8]

Augustine said in the Confessions 11:14:17 concerning time:

&quot;I know what it is, provided that nobody asks me, but if I want to explain it to an enquirer, I do not know.&quot;


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:39b36583cc]
Augustine said in the Confessions 11:14:17 concerning time: &quot;I know what it is, provided that nobody asks me, but if I want to explain it to an enquirer, I do not know.&quot; 
[/quote:39b36583cc]

Yet another demonstration of Augustine's wisdom.


----------



## kceaster

My question has always been, if we didn't have modern &quot;science&quot; would we believe that God created the world in six, 24 hour days?

I think the answer would be yes, we would.

What new revelation do we have to refute that fact? Does it come from exegesis of the text without the slant of science, or has our presupposition changed because of old earth theories.

My premise is that until these theories are proven, we should hold to 6X24. If not, we are allowing a theory to change our view of Scripture, where we would not have otherwise. What is the proof of this? Do we have any old earth exegesis prior to science's claims? No. we do not.

Therefore, we should remain at 6X24 until proven wrong.

KC


----------



## JohnV

Kevin:
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon. 

I think the concern for some, and I would agree, is that we begin to throw out the created norms in which the Word is revealed; throwing out the context and retaining the Word. Or, to put it differently, resolving a contradiction between the one revelation and the other by denying the one's authority. What is at issue is not the authority of general revelation, but rather man's conclusions which he draws from it. Man likes to jump to conclusions when he thinks the ducks are lining up. Extrapolation is man's favourite passtime.


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:7cc1c3f0a0]
Man likes to jump to conclusions when he thinks the ducks are lining up. Extrapolation is man's favourite passtime. 
[/quote:7cc1c3f0a0]


[quote:7cc1c3f0a0]
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon.
[/quote:7cc1c3f0a0]

Which verse is that? 

Sorry, couldn't resist. :bs2:

(I shouldn't be posting tonight; definitely not in a good mood.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:2d9de9b169][i:2d9de9b169]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:2d9de9b169]
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon. 
[/quote:2d9de9b169]

Uh John, there would be no difference in time when using a star or the sun. It's still one rotation of the earth with reference to a fixed point in space, sun or no sun, unless you postulate the the earth rotated at a different speed during the first 3 days. 

And to the others,
What findings of science could confirm a 6x24 or analogical day theory? Science can only tell us what happens now. As soon as you speculate the past, especially events like creation, you run into the same difficulties that evolutionists have. You have no way of knowing your theory is correct because you have no way of empiricaly verifying it. This is why science has limitations to it's use. Don't get me wrong, I love science, I have pursued two detailed courses of education in science. But when science has no way of verifying it's claims, then it's nothing more than speculation. But we do have an eyewitness account of the creation in Scripture, a historical account. That is our empirical evidence for the 6x24 day. As John mentioned, it is Scripture which ties the creation account, to the 6 day week mentioned in Duet 5. And Hebrews 11:3 states, &quot;By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.&quot; This is something God shows us through faith because as I stated above, there is no way for science to verify an alternate theory of origin. This makes the issue not a scientific one but hermenuetical.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Well said, Pat*

The Bible is its own interpreter. Outside info is often useful, but in the last analysis it is totally dispensible. Such info is not necessary to attain a thoroughly correct understanding of any given text, and that would be true not just &quot;spiritually&quot; but in every way a text speaks--historically, physically, figuratively etc. We still have rules of interpretation, but those rules (while maybe not spelled out as 'rules' in the Bible) are nevertheless congruent with the Bible. They are [i:e81152cdce]biblical.[/i:e81152cdce] 

This is my big problem with contrary views to 6-day: they are not organic developments of biblical hermeneutics, but are the products of external conclusions about the world, which are then brought to the Bible with the expectation that the Bible can and ought to be made to read in such a way that these conclusions are not challenged. In other words, there is a new final authority.

Ask yourself the question honestly: would the gap/theistic evolution/framework/analogic theories or any others (which are all new hermeneutics that are subtle, sideways, full-on, and frontal type assaults on the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic) have arisen if the centuries-old exegesis had not been tossed out wholesale as &quot;found wanting,&quot; and that without bothering to investigate if in fact there were &quot;long standing mistakes&quot; that could be corrected through better analysis? My judgment is no. The old exegesis was tested, and found sound as a bell, and could not be moved unless it was removed altogether.


----------



## LauridsenL

I don't want to cause unnecessary dissension. However, I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is [b:233733fa9f][u:233733fa9f]no possibility[/b:233733fa9f][/u:233733fa9f] that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)? Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this? Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality? And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved? Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate? 

Again, I agree wholeheartedly that if Scripture [b:233733fa9f][u:233733fa9f]in fact[/b:233733fa9f][/u:233733fa9f] is contrary to what appears to be a scientific discovery, we must bow to Scripture. But I think we should be cautious and humble before stating that our interpretation of Scripture is so certain that science MUST be wrong. Many of you will bristle at the comparison, and the analogy may not be perfect, but there were many in centuries past who believed that Scripture taught that the earth was flat and stationary, and that the Sun revolved around the earth. They were convinced that Scripture demanded the rejection of any contrary beliefs. That's what some texts seemed to imply and, after all, any contrary view offended the traditional exegesis. Today, after the scientific discoveries could no longer be denied, we not only see no such conflict, we find it hard to understand why those Christians were so convinced of their interpretation that some of them actually persecuted believing scientists who knew better.

I don't know that my exegesis is correct. I do know that my heart is convinced that Scripture is correct and thus that nothing man will ever discover about the reality of God's creation will ever be inconsistent with His word. On the contrary, I'm convinced that general revelation - though subservient to Scripture -- is not misleading and is consistent with inspired revelation. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, [u:233733fa9f]being understood through what has been made[/u:233733fa9f], so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20) That is, far from giving us a misleading picture of God, I believe that a study of His creation will reveal to us much about His staggering immensity, majesty, glory, and power. I believe that, just as there is much about God that we have never dreamed or imagined, as He graciously allows man to discover more and more about His creation (the nature of time, string theory(??), etc.), that truth will be demonstrated more and more clearly. The only proper response is and will be to fall at His feet in worship.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:d977901b80][i:d977901b80]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:d977901b80]
I don't want to cause unnecessary dissension. However, I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is [b:d977901b80][u:d977901b80]no possibility[/b:d977901b80][/u:d977901b80] that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)? Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this? Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality? And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved? Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate? 
[/quote:d977901b80]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My exegesis is based upon Scripture alone. I cannot see any other way to read the 6 days as any other than what the natural reading renders it. The Scriptures simply don't lend themselves to any other interpretation, especially in light of the fact that teh other interpretations often lead to many more interpretive difficulties than a 6x24 understanding. 

And there will never be any findings in science to show either way whether the world was created that way or not. You may postulate theories all you want about how the earth was created, but scientists have no way of verifiying these speculations. Scientists can verify whether or not the earth is round, or whether the earth rotates around the sun (especially since those errors were taken from primarily poetic sections of the Bible with metaphors which were not intended to be taken literally). They can tell us about time, light, relativity, and gravitational distortion all they want, and even glorify God in those discoveries, but that only tells us about the here and now. I don't care how many earth clocks there are indicating how old the earth is, because that only tells us how the world works now. We don't empirically know what the earth looked like in the beginning. We have no starting point as a reference for the &quot;earth clocks&quot; by which to measure. And scientists must also take into account the catastrophic changes which occured in Noah's flood. The Earth was most likely significantly changed by that event. I'm not trying to bring Scripture and true science into contradiction because that is impossible. But science has limitations, as well as problems with it's own interpretations of the data. Science can observe. That's it. We must rely on Scripture to tell us how we got here and how the earth came to be what we see today.


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:d385e1770a]I cannot see any other way to read the 6 days as any other than what the natural reading renders it. . . . . . Scientists can verify whether or not the earth is round, or whether the earth rotates around the sun (especially since those errors were taken from primarily poetic sections of the Bible with metaphors which were not intended to be taken literally). [/quote:d385e1770a]

Well, I certainly agree with your hermenuetical position regarding the limitiations and purpose of poetic sections of the Bible. My point is that apparently that position wasn't strong enough to carry the day in Copernicus' day. Many, many Christians refused to accept the truth that the earth rotates around the sun because they believed that the natural reading of the text precluded it. Now that we've been raised from birth with an acceptance of the scientific truth about the earth, and perhaps a better understanding of hermeneutics, it's easy for us to recognize that there never was a real conflict between Scripture and science on the point AND that many Christians had misinterpreted Scripture. But shouldn't that make us a bit cautious before speaking dogmatically about what I hope we all agree are difficult and non-essential issues.


[quote:d385e1770a]And there will never be any findings in science to show either way whether the world was created that way or not. You may postulate theories all you want about how the earth was created, but scientists have no way of verifiying these speculations.[/quote:d385e1770a]

This is too vague for me to respond other than to say that there certainly are limits to what scientists can discover about the physical universe. 

[quote:d385e1770a]I don't care how many earth clocks there are indicating how old the earth is, because that only tells us how the world works now. We don't empirically know what the earth looked like in the beginning. We have no starting point as a reference for the &quot;earth clocks&quot; by which to measure. And scientists must also take into account the catastrophic changes which occured in Noah's flood. The Earth was most likely significantly changed by that event. [/quote:d385e1770a]

I have several problems with that reasoning: First, the notion that we have no starting point as a reference for the earth clocks means, I assume, that God may have created evidence that seems to suggest an old-looking universe. (E.g., starlight from millions/billions of light years away must have been striking earth immediately upon creation). I view that as hard to square with God's statement that the heavens declare His handiwork. Second, I don't understand how a physcial flood on earth could conceivably have impacted earth clocks or the measurement of light from distant galaxies. Moreover, the notion that basic principles of God's physical creation changed because of the flood (or because of any other physical reason) flies in the face of the very principles that led Christians to be among the early scientistific pioneers. It was precisely because Christians like Blaise Pascale and others knew that God is a God of order and that He is unchanging that they assumed they could profitably study His creation and developed the scientific method to allow men to do so. 


[quote:d385e1770a]I'm not trying to bring Scripture and true science into contradiction because that is impossible. But science has limitations, as well as problems with it's own interpretations of the data. Science can observe. That's it. We must rely on Scripture to tell us how we got here and how the earth came to be what we see today. [/quote:d385e1770a]

I largely agree with this statement. As mentioned, there are serious limitations about what science can discover, though I don't think we can hide behind that statement. It tells us virtually nothing about whether science has in fact discovered a particular truth or not. I also agree that Scripture is supreme and that Scripture tells us without doubt that God created the heavens and earth and that he did so in &quot;six days.&quot; It doesn't tell us much detail about that creation at all; God has chosen to leave it to man's investigation of the insights that can be gleaned from general revelation to fill in many details. I readily admit, however, that we must be very careful about evaluating scientific claims -- I'll certainly not defending the philosophically based mistakes made by evolutionary biologists!

Anyway, peace! 


[Edited on 6-12-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:b2c6a69cb3][i:b2c6a69cb3]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:b2c6a69cb3]
I have several problems with that reasoning: First, the notion that we have no starting point as a reference for the earth clocks means, I assume, that God may have created evidence that seems to suggest an old-looking universe. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
So then, what does an old universe look like? Have you ever seen one before to compare? Just by making this statement you have already made an unproved assumption, something you are not supposed to do in science.

[quote:b2c6a69cb3]
(E.g., starlight from millions/billions of light years away must have been striking earth immediately upon creation). I view that as hard to square with God's statement that the heavens declare His handiwork. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
I would view that mystery as a confirmation of His handiwork 
[quote:b2c6a69cb3]
Second, I don't understand how a physcial flood on earth could conceivably have impacted earth clocks or the measurement of light from distant galaxies. Moreover, the notion that basic principles of God's physical creation changed because of the flood (or because of any other physical reason) flies in the face of the very principles that led Christians to be among the early scientistific pioneers. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
I don't think that the laws of nature changed because of the Flood. I think the evidence we have to look at was completely changed or perhaps terraformed  The earth does not look like the garden of Eden anymore but has had a complete makeover. It's entirely possible this Divine judgment upon the earth had further reaching consequences into the Universe (for instance, why does the Moon have so many craters on it if God made it good?) or at least our solar system. So whenever we look at the geologic stata or fossil records this catastrophic event must be taken into account, something which most scientists do not do. As for the &quot;earth clocks&quot;, again we have no starting point to use as a reference. We have nothing to compare these things too. All we have is what we can observe now. It is pure speculation to ponder how old the universe or earth are by them because we must first presuppose some sort of criteria to measure them by, which we have no way of empirally verifying. The light from the stars is always an interesting challenge and one which I'm eagerly listening to for an explanation. But it is still no objection to the 6x24 days since we are not told how God put those stars there, just that He did. Perhaps he created all the stars within close proximity and then &quot;stretched them out&quot; across the universe so that the light emitted from them is not &quot;a lie,&quot; you know, one of those relativity things. But because we don't have an explanation for it doesn't mean the 6x24 interpretation in invalid. We just don't have enough data to connect the dots yet. And we may never have it. The creation week was not exactly a normal occurence in history. It is a mixture of both providence and the supernatural. So if we were to try to measure things by today's scientific standards, we would not be able to account for the miraculous aspects of the creation. We only know that He took 6 days because He told us. It's a narrative text not poetic so there is really no way to get around it.


----------



## JohnV

Patrick:
Before I catch up on reading this post, let me correct you concerning the following,
[quote:85d685ca59]Uh John, there would be no difference in time when using a star or the sun. It's still one rotation of the earth with reference to a fixed point in space, sun or no sun, unless you postulate the the earth rotated at a different speed during the first 3 days. [/quote:85d685ca59]
Not so. Because the earth orbits the sun as it spins on it's axis it takes just a little bit more than one siderial day to accomplish one solar day. The time from one noon to the next noon has to take into account the distance traveled along the orbit, whereas the time from one determined position of a star to the next time it reaches that exact same position is acutally less than 24 hrs. as measured by a solar day. 

All I am doing is obviating the 24hr. solar day argument from any objection to the creation of the luminaries on the fouth day. It allows for 6 regular days of creation without the problem that the sun or stars were not there the first three days. It seems to be a stumbling block to many, especially the Analogy Theory, when in reality it's not a problem at all. 

Now, I'll go back and read. It may be that someone has already said all this.


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:569479b3a8]Perhaps he created all the stars within close proximity and then &quot;stretched them out&quot; across the universe so that the light emitted from them is not &quot;a lie,&quot; you know, one of those relativity things.[/quote:569479b3a8]

Well, I fail to see how stretching stars out in a period of a few thousand years so that it only appears that they are millions of light years away would be anything but misleading. 


[quote:569479b3a8] But because we don't have an explanation for it doesn't mean the 6x24 interpretation in invalid.[/quote:569479b3a8]

I would concede that there are instances in which we simply have to say that we don't have an explanation for it and that in those instances we need not worry that Scripture is wrong. Of course, the question is whether this is one of those issue. As I've tried to make clear, I do believe that even though the Genesis text doesn't say expressly that the days are 24 hours, science has shown us how that could both be literally true while other (longer) measurements of the amount of elapsed time would also be accurate. 

[quote:569479b3a8]We just don't have enough data to connect the dots yet. And we may never have it. [/quote:569479b3a8]

Perhaps. But find me a genuine, believing Christian physicist (and there are many) who agrees with you that we just don't have enough data make conclusions about the age of the universe as measured from earth, and I'll find it easier to agree with you.

We certainly won't change each other's minds on this issue and that's fine with me. I pray that God will keep my heart open to hear all sides of the issue and will show me the error of my thinking, if I'm wrong. 

I look forward to discussing other issues with you. Because this issue is perhaps the only one in which I have any reservations about the WCF, I'm confident that we are very much in agreement on most other issues. (Although I could try to suggest I'm in complete agreement with the WCF because I, too, believe in a 6x24 creation, that wouldn't be honest because I recognize they had no idea that time is relative and thus never even considered the possibility that a day might literally equal a thousand years!) I'd much rather debate an Armininian about God's sovereignty, total depravity, monergistic regeneration, etc.!


----------



## JohnV

OK, caught up.

I agree with Bruce for everything except the idea of the reliability of science in light of Scripture. The very rules of interpretation he speaks of are creational, scientific, and not exegetically ascertained. As Lee said, there is a consitency in truth that applies to the truths of Scripture as well as the creation. And I am a believer in the clear revelation of God in &quot;the things created&quot;, as Lee pointed out.

I agree with Patrick's view of subjective science as well. I don't think, however, that that precludes science as normative on Scripture, and Scripture on science. It is what is in our time touted as science, when in fact it is not always necessarily so, that some would foist upon Scripture what real science would not, based upon their convictions of what science demands of them. I have already pointed out one weakness of some, who make great hay out of the fact that the luminaries were created the fourth day, to cast aspersions on the idea of 'day' for the first three days. It is not a scientifically rooted objection, as some would have it. It is, in fact, science that rescues the 24hr. (or a bit less) period day for the first three, thereby, in my view, obviating the Analogy Theory. 

I too would like to add my two cents to Lee's questions:
[quote:477da0983d]I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is no possibility that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)?[/quote:477da0983d]
In fact, Lee, science may well be correct. It just isn't finished with the theory for it to be full enough to make an account based upon Scripture. For science has to account for two non-subjective clocks (atomic) doing two different things, but, at the same time. Do you see the third dimension there? They are relating to the time they are subject to, and they may be different, but then we have to try to make sense out of two times happening at the same time. For the two clocks are brought together for comparison, not in different relations, but again in the same relation; and one will not accurately depict that relation, though they were non-subjective clocks. You refer to a relation here and a relation there, but Genesis One and Two refer to no here or there relation in particular, but I would suppose it refers to the one in which the differing relations are brought together for comparison. 

That is: the consideration that, though there may be widely varying relational times, that atomic clocks in widely ranging locations showing different times, so that no two are the same, that yet there is a consistency to the whole: the universe is not a relational chaos, but is rather a beauteous unity. For time to be consistent all through it may indeed require what you call relative time. I don't know, because I don't understand it. But the theory is not developed enough, as far as I know, for it to impact the Genesis account. It is one thing to say that time is relative, it is another to state what that means to a unified universe as a whole. 

And cannot you see that the relative time notion should have a greater impact on the time science tells us it takes for starlight to reach us than it has upon the Genesis account? That light may have a relevancy quotient we are not aware of. (I don't know if I used the word 'quotient' in its right context here. I think I did, but I'm not a scientist. )

[quote:477da0983d] Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this?[/quote:477da0983d]
I would. It seems that God ties the days of creation to the days of the week. I have not yet seen any science or theory that would upset that. It is true that it may be an allegorical comparison, but that is as far as we can go right now. We have no warrant to say it is allegorical. We must take Scripture to say what it says in normal syntax; we may not put words in God's mouth. If He means to use the creation says as allegorical, He will reveal that to us eventually. Meanwhile we do no wrong in believing the Word rather than allowing speculation to govern our interpretations of His Word. 

This is a pet peeve of mine. I think that many have gone beyond the bounds that even the Apostles would not have dared cross. &quot;First of all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture is a mater of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.&quot; 1 Pet.1:20, 21. But that is for another thread.

[quote:477da0983d] Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality?[/quote:477da0983d]
Yes it is possible. But we have no other authority to compel us otherwise for the time being. This question goes two ways: are you so sure concerning science that unnecessary conflicts are raised before they are given a chance to be resolved? Is it possible we are jumping the gun in making assertions concerning Scripture based on science? 
[quote:477da0983d] And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved?[/quote:477da0983d]
I have not been slack in my attempts to understand. I just don't, even though I've tried. But again, it may be because I've concentrated on the Hawking theories and schematics. 
[quote:477da0983d] Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate? [/quote:477da0983d]
My exegesis, which I am not an expert in, for I do not know Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, is not just traditional, in the sense that it is determined to be a conservationist of the past. As I said, I also believe in the clear revelation of God in &quot;the things created&quot;. I am willing to consider possibilities. It is these possibilities in addition to tradition that have rooted my trust in the Confession that states that God has revealed Himself by two means, not just one. To me both are authoritative, and both, to me, indicate a six 24 hr. (or a bit less)-day, so far. Science has only increased my trust in the accuracy of the Word. 


The following is a comment on some papers I have read, by authors who are only too ready to paint six-day people into a corner. They have me as a flat-earther, without trial, or without faithful consideration. 
I think it is a mistake to assume a conservative attitude in those who stand by the traditional view. It is a mistake to assume that those who doubt scientific assumptions, or theories, or even proven givens, are not considering that science. It is rather the popular field itself that has undermined it's own trustworthiness, so it ought not to cast aspersions on those whose trust is in a surer foundation; on those who are not as scientifically gifted, but aren't fools either.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## LauridsenL

[quote:1aab3ecb45] It is these possibilities rather than tradition that have rooted my trust in the Confession that states that God has revealed Himself by two means, not just one. To me both are authoritative, and both, to me, indicate a six 24 hr. (or a bit less)-day, so far. [/quote:1aab3ecb45]

First, again, thanks to you and to the others on this thread for the civil, respectful, and thoughtful discussion. I very much respect the way in which you are willing to grapple with the issues, and I do not at all I think you are a &quot;flat-earther.&quot; 

Second, I wasn't going to respond to any of your specific points because I think we've pretty much reached the end of fruitful discussion on this general issue, at least for now. However, I can't help but respond to the above quote, which I assume refers to both general and Scriptural revelation. And I assume that by general revelation you mean what God has revealed about Himself and which can be discovered about Him and reality by studying the created universe. I understand that your view is that Scripture demands a 6x24 hour creation period viewed even from an earthly perspective. Although I disagree with that view, I can at least see the basis for your position. But on what basis do you suggest that a study of the universe affirmatively suggests that the universe is only a few thousand years old, even from an earth clock perspective. I know of no serious physicists, Christian or not, who think that there is any doubt that stars are millions/billions of light years from us (and, providentially, are thus precisely where they need to be to sustain life on earth). It seems to me that at most you can aruge, as puritansailor does, that in some unknowable way the light only appears to be from objects that far away. But that (in my view unsustainable) supposition is a far cry from scientific evidence/general revelation that the universe is in fact only a few thousand years old.

As I said to puritansailor, I look forward to discussing other, less uncertain, issues with you. 

Now, off to make dinner and then settle down with a good book. I perused the Library thread and saw several great recommendations, including a few that I had started but need to finish. Tonight, it will be either Charnock's, &quot;The Existence and Attributes of God,&quot; or D.A. Carson's, &quot;A Call to Spiritual Reformation.&quot;

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## JohnV

Lee:
It has been a pleasure to discuss these things with you as well. You have been gracious and attentive. I did not mean to suggest that you intimated I was a flat-earther. You never did that, not even by implication. 

You are right, I did mean the above in respect to general and special revelations. But I did not mean to suggest that there is physical evidence in general revelation alone that precludes all else but the 24hr. day view. What I meant was that truth is a unity, a whole, and that the two revelations cannot contradict without violating truth. It is the two together that are the subject of verification, not one or the other, or two separate unrelated truths, or some special relationship between the two that makes them concide. Both Scripture and general revelation conform to truth, God's truth in things created, and God's truth in His Word. 

So the two together, in an overall sense, indicate to me a six-24hr. day. It's just another way of saying that general revelation has not yet forced a view of Scripture that says we're mistaken, like it did after Galileo's time.

I thank you too, Lee. I think that we may have more profitable discussions later. I think both of us are agreed that we shouldn't need to compromise either science or Scripture in order to understand the truth. They will tell us whether or not our science is true, or whether our understanding of Scripture is true. Superimposing theories just will not do.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:53401e69b5][i:53401e69b5]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:53401e69b5]
I know of no serious physicists, Christian or not, who think that there is any doubt that stars are millions/billions of light years from us (and, providentially, are thus precisely where they need to be to sustain life on earth). It seems to me that at most you can aruge, as puritansailor does, that in some unknowable way the light only appears to be from objects that far away. But that (in my view unsustainable) supposition is a far cry from scientific evidence/general revelation that the universe is in fact only a few thousand years old.
[/quote:53401e69b5]
Just to clarify, I did not argue the above here. I do not doubt the stars being billions of light years away. What I was trying to explain, though too breifly, is how they got there without God having create &quot;false&quot; light. One [b:53401e69b5]possibility[/b:53401e69b5] is that God created all the stars within close proximity to the earth and then spread them out to the universe. I don't think this took thousands of years. It may have only taken the 4th day in which they were created or even happened instantly when God spoke them into existence, so that's what I ment by &quot;spread out&quot;. The new developments in time, light, and relativity relationships certainly make this a possibility, so that the light we see from the stars is true and reliable. It's even more tenable adding the supernatural foundation of their creation and placement in the heavens. Again, these are just theories I've heard which provide viable possibility to harmonize Scripture with the [b:53401e69b5]current[/b:53401e69b5] theories of science. Either way, the alleged lack of evidence to convince people of the &quot;young earth&quot; theory in astronomy is no objection to me regarding the 6x24 day interpretation. It just means that they haven't found enough evidence yet to confirm what the Scriptures state. Just needed to clarify what I was trying to say earlier.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*I mean the rules of biblical interpretation are themselves b*

In the last analysis, [i:ce2b8aedd1]these[/i:ce2b8aedd1] rules are exegetically determined. If not, you have erected an independent standard. I think WCF ch. 1 reinforces the idea that the Bible is [i:ce2b8aedd1]comprehensively[/i:ce2b8aedd1] sufficient regarding its own data. 

JohnV, (we are on the same side here, I know) I'm not sure I understand what you gathered from my post. You wrote: [quote:ce2b8aedd1]I agree with Bruce for everything except the idea of the reliability of science in light of Scripture. The very rules of interpretation he speaks of are creational, scientific, and not exegetically ascertained. As Lee said, there is a consitency in truth that applies to the truths of Scripture as well as the creation. And I am a believer in the clear revelation of God in &quot;the things created&quot;, as Lee pointed out.[/quote:ce2b8aedd1] I am not suggesting that proper rules of scientific inquiry into general revelation are not fully congruent with the Creator God who gave us special revelation. Nor do I think that the proper use of those tools cannot occasionally challenge our biblical understanding. Here's what I said: [quote:ce2b8aedd1][i:ce2b8aedd1]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:ce2b8aedd1]
The Bible is its own interpreter. Outside info is often useful, but in the last analysis it is totally dispensible. Such info is not necessary to attain a thoroughly correct understanding of any given text, and that would be true not just &quot;spiritually&quot; but in every way a text speaks--historically, physically, figuratively etc. We still have rules of interpretation, but those rules (while maybe not spelled out as 'rules' in the Bible) are nevertheless congruent with the Bible. They are [i:ce2b8aedd1]biblical.[/i:ce2b8aedd1] [/quote:ce2b8aedd1] If someone's investigative conclusions lead him to tell us that the earth was not created in one contiguous week, less one day, that challenges us from branch to root: 1) as to whether we have read Genisis one thoroughly (did we skip/add anything?), 2) whether we are understanding this passage correctly to be narrative text, 3) whether we have the right rules for interpreting narrative text, 4) whether there are consistent rules generally for narrative text, 5) whether there is such a thing as narrative text, 6) whether God intends an essential meaning for a passage that stays the same throughout all time and places, 7) whether we can understand our Bibles. And perhaps some others I've left out. 

Before we can start to offer new explanations for a passage, we have to understand what was wrong with the old explanation. We work our way up the tree. [b:ce2b8aedd1]We cannot simply decide that the old explanation was wrong because some new challenge has come along and told us it was wrong (Gen 3:4).[/b:ce2b8aedd1] The reason can't arise from an alternate authority without consequently rejecting the original. 

Please understand me. &quot;Science&quot; can challenge our biblical interpretations, but it cannot provide the reasons for changing them. And the lower down the branch/trunk/root of the hermeneutial tree their axe strikes at, the more fundamental the changes they are demanding. Intelligently committed 6-dayers are convinced that thus far, [i:ce2b8aedd1]no cogent criticisms[/i:ce2b8aedd1] of the old hermeneutics have been raised. The whole edifice has simply been dismissed as &quot;inadequate&quot; on hubris.


----------



## JohnV

Yes, Bruce, we are on the same page. I would use different words than you do, that's all. I certainly do not want to give the idea that I support any notion that the Word is not sufficient for what it teaches; it is it's own best interpreter. I just do not want to give any hint whatsoever of dichotomy in truth as it relates to either general revelation or special revelation. It seems to me that that is the point that is jumped all over on by speculative theories. We have to keep unity here, and we have to keep a distance between revelation and theory. Patrick said it well, as you did too in the four or so points you raise. 

You see, someone may try, and people usually do try, raise up a perfect logic concerning the things of creation. But as strong as the logic may be it just cannot dislodge my personal relationship with God, Who reveals Himself in Scripture. I believe Him and His simple words, for I know that He knows what He's talking about, without fault. In the final analysis I believe it because He said it; and I know that He knows His science. He made the things we study, and I see His handiwork in it, because I see His handiwork in myself. There is no subjectivity to that; it is definetly objective. My salvation is not a subjective hope, but an objective certainty. And uncertain certainty is absurd. 

As I said, let science apply its theories on itself first before jumping all over special revelation. They are right to assume that they need to coincide; but science needs to coincide with itself first. And we are many, many years away from that. Patrick makes a very good point.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:65f929d77a][i:65f929d77a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:65f929d77a]
Patrick makes a very good point. [/quote:65f929d77a]
What point was that?

Oh, and I concede your point about the ever so slight difference in the days. I hadn't thought about the orbital factor. But it's still a natural day none the less.


----------



## JohnV

Patrick:
[quote:3edadc2252]What point was that?[/quote:3edadc2252] 

[quote:3edadc2252]The new developments in time, light, and relativity relationships certainly make this a possibility, so that the light we see from the stars is true and reliable. It's even more tenable adding the supernatural foundation of their creation and placement in the heavens.[/quote:3edadc2252]
This is not the only possibility as well. The fact is that it is not so much that the Scriptural possibiblity is counted out, as that many others are presented to science, many of which could conceivably include the Scriptural account.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I agree with you there too. I think the difficulty also is that we are trying to understand supernatural events through the eyes of our uniformity of nature now. I'm not saying that the laws didn't necessarily function then, (i.e the fact that the earth was rotating to give us a day, light existed, etc.), but they were still being created and developed at the time. They were not firmly established as the &quot;norm&quot; until God had finished creating. So, though we may find some ideas in science to explain possibilites, the very nature of the events in the creation days demands a much more comprehensive approach than I think science itself can offer.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

if you believe in ANYTHING other then six literal, 24 hour days, you are undermining the authority of the BIBLE!


----------



## dado6

Lee and Chris,

Interstellar distances are not measured directly. They are extrapolated based on purely optical information (primarily parallax and brightness). Ultimately these extrapolations are rooted in the idea of a constant speed of light, which itself has not been empirically established outside the limited distances man has traveled thus far in space (and some even question its accurate observation within these confines). In short we assume vast distances based on an assumed speed of light.

Point is anything in science that does not start with scripture as a reference must be regarded with skepticism by the Christian. The first chapter of Romans tells us why. The natural tendency in man is to interpret and collate observational data in such a way as to &quot;suppress the truth in unrighteousness&quot;. The fact that vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances before we seek to conform Holy Writ to our sin-bound observations and theories.

Thanks,
Rob


----------

