# I Have Changed My Mind Concerning Creation



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

That is great news.


----------



## RamistThomist

:thumbsup:

Doug Kelly's _Creation and Change_ did it for me.


----------



## Grymir

Congrats are in order. As a student of theology, this will help you in ways you can't even imagine yet. God's blessings upon you!


----------



## Quickened

I'd be curious to hear what he said that got you to change your mind! (out of curiosity of course)


----------



## danmpem

Quickened said:


> I'd be curious to hear what he said that got you to change your mind! (out of curiosity of course)


----------



## VaughanRSmith

I'd also be interested in hearing what you learned.


----------



## Michael

Hey Jacob,

As the father of a 1 1/2 yr old who loves the movie _Cars_, I must say that you now have quite possibly the greatest avatar *ever*. 

(At least until someone uses Mater)


----------



## JBaldwin

So glad to hear that. I thought you might be saying you were going to switch away from the literal 6 day/24 hour view. My husband was educated around scientists, and it took him a very long time to come around to the literal 6-day creation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well to say a little background first as most of you know I have recently left the PC (USA) (within the last 3 months to be exact though I had always felt "uncomfortable" there) and have never, truly, had cause to really question the varied understandings of Genesis 1. Firstly in my OT01 (Winter 06-07, Intro to OT: Genesis-2nd Chronicles) at PTS I was first presented with the many varying positions concerning this, none of which I had heard before and prior to this I was a not concerned really about the question of creation at all. In that discussion in OT01 I thought it would be prudent to pick one of the options so I became a Framework person. Seemed the most logical given "scientific evidence" and all. Well I actually decided to research Framework a little more and found it wanting. So after that I had been in limbo until tonight. I must say I have always "wanted" to believe in 6/24 but never had the intestinal fortitude to do so. 

Well in class tonight (ST 41, Westminster Confession) at RPTS taught by Dr. Wayne Spear we went over Chapter 4 concerning Creation. As I was listening to the lecture I was reading the Scripture references in my WCF (which happens to be the one in the OPC clothbound edition) and my eyes were opened and it became very clear to me that 6/24 was correct and the Confession plainly teaches it.


----------



## Craig

Amen! God's Word *is *authoritative. God bless.


----------



## fredtgreco

Ivanhoe said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Doug Kelly's _Creation and Change_ did it for me.



This is one of the best books anyone can read on the subject.

Kelly is awesome.


----------



## Poimen

I thought the Puritanboard was a haven for scholars. Judging by this thread however, it has been taken over by a bunch of Bible thumping fundies.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

*hummm*



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.
> 
> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.



But, what of those presuppositions? Should readers of the Bible accept anything based on presuppositions? I wonder, what evidence in the Bible presents this position - if you do not mind sharing?

wondering

john


----------



## S. Spence

Just while we're on this topic has anyone come across any good articles on evolution with respect to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. that entropy (disorder) increases with time)?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Sydnorphyn said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.
> 
> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, what of those presuppositions? Should readers of the Bible accept anything based on presuppositions? I wonder, what evidence in the Bible presents this position - if you do not mind sharing?
> 
> wondering
> 
> john
Click to expand...


For one Scripture teaches that all Creation fell with Adam's sin correct? Well if one of the consequences of the fall is death (for animals as well as humanity) then there cannot be animal death before the fall (Gen 3:21).


----------



## Contra Marcion

Ivanhoe said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Doug Kelly's _Creation and Change_ did it for me.



Me, too. After having Dr. Kelly for Systematic I, I now routinely pass out copies of that book!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Call it ignorance or whatever but when I find out that a preacher denies the literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11 I have a hard time listening to anything else he has to say.


----------



## jaybird0827

I am absolutely thrilled to learn of the grace of God in deliverying you from PC(USA). I had to take my family out many years ago when I realized that any benefit we could possibly hope for in our attempt to be "missionaries" to what had been the denomination of our youth would more than have been offset by the liablities to our son and any other children the Lord would have been pleased to give us.


----------



## Philip A

Poimen said:


> I thought the Puritanboard was a haven for scholars. Judging by this thread however, it has been taken over by a bunch of Bible thumping fundies.



It's taken you three years to figure that out?


----------



## Christusregnat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.
> 
> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.



God is good!


----------



## Ravens

His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history. 



Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.


----------



## DMcFadden

JDWiseman said:


> His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.



Joshua, I don't mean to sound like a back woods hick to the more scholarly among us, but my experience was identical to yours. R.C. Sproul's and John Piper's teachings were used of God to enlighten me to things I had shoved to the back burner of my mind for years regarding Calvinism. Answers in Genesis materials and people like Kelley changed my thinking on the Genesis issue. Six academic degrees and credential programs had left me settling for half-answers and "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand" type of paralysis of analysis for years. Coming to Calvinism and to a straight forward reading of Genesis felt like "the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of the text in front of me" just as your did. I love your description. It puts into words exactly what my own doctrinal transition was like.


----------



## fredtgreco

DMcFadden said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua, I don't mean to sound like a back woods hick to the more scholarly among us, but my experience was identical to yours. R.C. Sproul's and John Piper's teachings were used of God to enlighten me to things I had shoved to the back burner of my mind for years regarding Calvinism. Answers in Genesis materials and people like Kelley changed my thinking on the Genesis issue. Six academic degrees and credential programs had left me settling for half-answers and "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand" type of paralysis of analysis for years. Coming to Calvinism and to a straight forward reading of Genesis felt like "the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of the text in front of me" just as your did. I love your description. It puts into words exactly what my own doctrinal transition was like.
Click to expand...


I think this is an important point. I always have to laugh when someone treats the "ordinary day" view as being benighted or unscholarly, especially since I have (to speak as a fool) 4 degrees.


----------



## fredtgreco

S. Spence said:


> Just while we're on this topic has anyone come across any good articles on evolution with respect to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. that entropy (disorder) increases with time)?



Doug Kelly's book has a decent (if not exhaustive) treatment of this.


----------



## AV1611

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.



That is interesting because I have started to move in the opposite direction from you


----------



## Me Died Blue

Craig said:


> Amen! God's Word *is *authoritative. God bless.



To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).



fredtgreco said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbsup:
> 
> Doug Kelly's _Creation and Change_ did it for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the best books anyone can read on the subject.
> 
> Kelly is awesome.
Click to expand...


I'll have to check out that book.


----------



## Craig

Me Died Blue said:


> To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).



To be equally fair...if the *way* in which the Creation account is to be taken authoritatively is to take a different sense than a natural reading...that throws *the sense* in which the rest of scripture is to be taken as authoritative out of whack...I realize that isn't how it always plays out for Reformed believers...but that's the slip'n slide.

I'm not trying to debate this...this isn't the sort of thread where I should quibble.

I think Backwoods Presbyterian has an idea of what I'm getting at...as do others...and I want to simply rejoice with him.


----------



## DMcFadden

AV1611 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting because I have started to move in the opposite direction from you
Click to expand...


At the risk of sounding like a broken record (sorry, I forgot that you kids don't know what a broken record sounds like . . . "to run the risk of engaging in vain repetitions"), try reading Kelley and material on the Answers in Genesis site. They really do raise scientific, biblical, and hermeneutical issues worthy of consideration, especially if you find yourself moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thanks all for your kind words.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting because I have started to move in the opposite direction from you
Click to expand...


Give me a good exegetical reason why the six-days in Genesis 1 are not days of ordinary length? I wavered on this about 4 years ago, but I could not see any Biblical reason to doubt the 6 day creation viewpoint.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Ivanhoe said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Doug Kelly's _Creation and Change_ did it for me.



Same here.


----------



## AV1611

*Mods, feel free to relocate this if deemed necessary*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Give me a good exegetical reason why the six-days in Genesis 1 are not days of ordinary length? I wavered on this about 4 years ago, but I could not see any Biblical reason to doubt the 6 day creation viewpoint.



I am not doubting that "day" means "day" as such but rather I think that the message was an interraction with canaanite baalism. It's late and I am off to bed:

*1.* http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Futato_RainGen2_WTJ.pdf
*2.* Essay Reviews: Douglas Kelly on the Framework Interpretation of Genesis One


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I also highly recommend_* Did God Create in Six Days?*_ ed. by Joey Pipa and David Hall...


----------



## Me Died Blue

Craig said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be equally fair...if the *way* in which the Creation account is to be taken authoritatively is to take a different sense than a natural reading...that throws *the sense* in which the rest of scripture is to be taken as authoritative out of whack...I realize that isn't how it always plays out for Reformed believers...but that's the slip'n slide.
> 
> I'm not trying to debate this...this isn't the sort of thread where I should quibble.
> 
> I think Backwoods Presbyterian has an idea of what I'm getting at...as do others...and I want to simply rejoice with him.
Click to expand...


Without wanting to defend any one position at this point, and indeed without trying to creating a debate, I think the very point that most non-6/24 theologians would challenge is the assumption that the literal 6/24 view is in fact the "natural reading" of the text, possibly mentioning how Reformed churches see a non-literal reading of many of the "all" and "world" atonement passages to actually be the "natural" one.

And indeed, I certainly always rejoice at seeing fellow believers like Benjamin eagerly, diligently and joyfully working through issues like this.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Me, too. After having Dr. Kelly for Systematic I, I now routinely pass out copies of that book!



Great! I'll PM you my address (but you have to promise to send it in a plain brown envelope...)


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I also highly recommend_* Did God Create in Six Days?*_ ed. by Joey Pipa and David Hall...



I just bought this book. I am looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

SermonAudio.com - Six Days & Eisegesis Problem

This message by Ken Ham is worth the time in my opinion.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Me Died Blue said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be equally fair...if the *way* in which the Creation account is to be taken authoritatively is to take a different sense than a natural reading...that throws *the sense* in which the rest of scripture is to be taken as authoritative out of whack...I realize that isn't how it always plays out for Reformed believers...but that's the slip'n slide.
> 
> I'm not trying to debate this...this isn't the sort of thread where I should quibble.
> 
> I think Backwoods Presbyterian has an idea of what I'm getting at...as do others...and I want to simply rejoice with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without wanting to defend any one position at this point, and indeed without trying to creating a debate, I think the very point that most non-6/24 theologians would challenge is the assumption that the literal 6/24 view is in fact the "natural reading" of the text, possibly mentioning how Reformed churches see a non-literal reading of many of the "all" and "world" atonement passages to actually be the "natural" one.
> 
> And indeed, I certainly always rejoice at seeing fellow believers like Benjamin eagerly, diligently and joyfully working through issues like this.
Click to expand...


So the question is how does one determine what the natural reading is? That the overwhelming majority of people in church history and (regular history) held to 6/24 creationism is a huge barrier to those who wish to argue for a different "natural" reading.

As an aside, if one finds such reasoning appealing, the argument for a geocentristic reading of scripture is even tougher to overcome.

CT


----------



## DavidCPorter

I have always found the fourth commandment to be convincing scripture on this. "For in six days the Lord created...." Written by the finger of God to a people who would have understood it as refering to literal days. Exodus 20 is not a creation myth it is the declaration of God directly to his people.


----------



## S. Spence

DavidCPorter said:


> I have always found the fourth commandment to be convincing scripture on this. "For in six days the Lord created...." Written by the finger of God to a people who would have understood it as refering to literal days. Exodus 20 is not a creation myth it is the declaration of God directly to his people.



That's a good point -I hadn't thought of that before.


----------



## mark

I've held to a YEC for quite some time, and hashed through the issues as well. I have found that Answers in Genesis tends to be very flippant however when dealing with the issue. If we want to redeem the academy (and I think we do) we've got serious work to do in the scientific fields. Mark Noll in his book _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_ blasts YEC out of the water, saying how awful it has been for Christian scholarship. There simply are too few scientists doing research in this field. And, to further the dilemma, I don't intend to get a PhD in the natural sciences!


----------



## AV1611

S. Spence said:


> That's a good point -I hadn't thought of that before.



PSCF March 1996 Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony by Meredith G. Kline


----------



## fredtgreco

S. Spence said:


> DavidCPorter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always found the fourth commandment to be convincing scripture on this. "For in six days the Lord created...." Written by the finger of God to a people who would have understood it as refering to literal days. Exodus 20 is not a creation myth it is the declaration of God directly to his people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point -I hadn't thought of that before.
Click to expand...


It is more than that. There is a direct correlation between the Sabbath being a _day_ and not a _principle_, and the days of Genesis (referenced in Exodus 20:11) being _ordinary_ and being _typological_.

It should be no surprise that Lee Irons, whose review paper was quoted above, denied the abiding validity of the 4th commandment, and was basically defrocked for that.


----------



## cih1355

I read the book, _Thousands Not Billions_, which is edited by Don DeYoung. It provides a summary of the RATE project which was a project performed by young earth creationists who did research regarding the age of the earth. A Hebrew scholar by the name of Stephen Boyd was a part of the RATE project. Boyd studied Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 in order to see if that biblical passage should be interpreted as a literal historical narrative or as poetry. Boyd analyzed the relative distribution of finite verbs in that passage. In biblical Hebrew, there are four finite verb forms: preterite, imperfect, perfect, and waw-perfect (p. 160). Historical narratives in Hebrew uses more preterite verbs while poetic texts use more perfect and imperfect verbs (p. 161). Boyd's conclusion was that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is statistically classified as narrative with a probability of 0.9999 (pp. 167-168). A probability of 1 would be the highest value.


----------



## RamistThomist

mark said:


> I've held to a YEC for quite some time, and hashed through the issues as well. I have found that Answers in Genesis tends to be very flippant however when dealing with the issue. If we want to redeem the academy (and I think we do) we've got serious work to do in the scientific fields. Mark Noll in his book _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_ blasts YEC out of the water, saying how awful it has been for Christian scholarship. There simply are too few scientists doing research in this field. And, to further the dilemma, I don't intend to get a PhD in the natural sciences!



Noll fails to critique YEC on biblical/theological grounds. He just whines that such people look like fundamentalists and it makes it hard for Christians to be seen as academically and culturally relevant. 

The book was okay in some respects but I have a hard time taking Noll's whining (and that's what it is) seriously.


----------



## DavidGGraves

I always find it ironic that arch-Historical-Critic James Barr identifies Genesis 1 as 24 hour days because of the syntax, yet evangelicals and reformed folk want to do gymnastics to get out of:

"and there was evening and there was morning one day" The Hebrew reads the cardinal not the ordinal in an etiological manner so as to define what a day is, odd that.


----------

