# Genesis 1:1-2:3



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 3, 2006)

Do you argue for a literal 7 days, or not for the Genesis narrative of creation?


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 3, 2006)

Seven 24 hour days. I just don't see any necessity to step aside of or complicate the plain teaching of the text.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 4, 2006)




----------



## py3ak (Mar 4, 2006)

I almost voted 7. Not only is it hard for me to keep 1 & 7 separate, 7 just sounds so free-spirited.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 4, 2006)

there are several excellent listing of the various positions at:

for creation-evolution-design debate spectrum of positions see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqiposs.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html

i believe that the lhaarsma's is the most complete.
however none of them sound anything like number 7 in the poll above.
i wonder if this poll is trying to prove something rather than to gauge sentiment?
what's the word i'm looking for? prejudicial language


> Definition:
> 
> Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.



from: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php

[Edited on 3-4-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## no1special18 (Mar 4, 2006)

I am convinced that someone would have to do gymnastics with the text to get it to say anything other then seven literal 24 hour days.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 4, 2006)

Although my thought does _lean_ toward the literal interpretation, at this point I essentially give at least some liberty to each position that affirms the historicity of the garden account and creation _ex nihilo_...much like the issue of eschatology for me at least right now, where I don't conclusively reject any common position other than hyper-Preterism and the Dispensational view.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Mar 4, 2006)

Reymond's New Syst. has some good stuff on this.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Reymond's New Syst. has some good stuff on this.



Does he take the literal interpretation?


----------



## Robin (Mar 5, 2006)

Framework



Robin


----------



## just_grace (Mar 5, 2006)

A long time. 

Yet less than a ten billioneth millioneth of a second with regards to eternity.

( worth the edit )...

Could not vote, no real option for me. I am not a Darwi.

lol!

Forgot my mantra...'Does it matter' ?

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 6, 2006)

As a matter of biblical understanding, I believe the Bible teaches seven days, so that's what I'm sticking to. 

The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time. 

However, I see no need to capitulate with the "apparent" age of creation that evolution promotes. 1. Evolutionary theory itself necessitates the "scientific" age of the earth and universe more than the actual evidence. 2. Especially when it comes to light from stars, etc., I think it is easily understandable that God simply created things with apparent age. Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, as were the animals I would assume. Why couldn't the stars be old enough to have even died out at that time?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> As a matter of biblical understanding, I believe the Bible teaches seven days, so that's what I'm sticking to.
> 
> The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time.
> ...



The light from stars thing always stuck me, until someone pointed out that whenevre God creates, he creates mature and fully functional, with an appearance of history it never had (man, Jesus' fish and bread, etc).


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 6, 2006)

I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2006)

On fossil strata and so forth - its silliness to assume, which evolutionists do, that the strata represents millions of years as the records continually go deeper. What they need to do is seriously bring out the findings of Mt St. Helens after it blew. Go figure, in 8 minutes (yes, that's right - 8 whole minutes) it created petrified forests layered at differentiation levels of petrification (as if to think it happened over millions of years like in Yellowstone), layered strata (just like you see in the fossil records), and a miniature Grand Canyon. But they'll never tell because information like that will overthrow evolution completely.

A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days. If Mt. St. Helens can do it in 8 minutes on a small scale, 40 days would be enough time on a large scale.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 6, 2006)

I would've voted...but you didn't have the literal 6 24hr day option up there...I believe God rested on the 7th...

(yes, I'm being ornery)


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 6, 2006)

> Go figure, in 8 minutes (yes, that's right - 8 whole minutes) it created petrified forests layered at differentiation levels of petrification (as if to think it happened over millions of years like in Yellowstone), layered strata (just like you see in the fossil records), and a miniature Grand Canyon.



do you have a reference to them being petrified as a result of being buried in ash?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2006)

Yes. I'll try and locate it. It was a documentary series i watched.


----------



## Presbyrino (Mar 6, 2006)

My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.

Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.








[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]


----------



## Mike (Mar 6, 2006)

I voted literal seven days. Truth be told, I'm not sure this is entirely fair to the text. However, the other options don't seem to be remotely fair to the text.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2006)

I believe this was the video.

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/30-9-063
Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe 
Dr. Steven Austin


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.



Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)
This theory, though the minority, was developed precisely because the fossil record was a joke. The theory, by the way, claims that we don't have transitional forms because evolution has a long period of stasis punctuated by short bursts of evolutionary change. So, we see that the theory has been formulated in such a way that the non-evidence of intermediate fossils is actually evidence for evolution! It's like: my evidence is that there wouldn't have been any evidence!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> ...



One major treatment of that, written on the popular level, is Stephen Jay Gould's _Full House_. While I naturally don't agree with the core of his evolutionary thesis, the book itself as a whole is an extremely fascinating (and entertaining, I might add) read nonetheless, including all the relating factors and tangents it explores in a variety of categories. I think you might enjoy it.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 6, 2006)

> Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)



Yeah, I'm aware of the ways evolutionists try to explain the holes in the fossil records. I was just wondering whether or not the existence of the fossil record was something that lead people to take alternate views on creation. In other words, the fossils that are there couldn't have developed in the timeframe of young earth 6 day creationism. Dr. McMahon seems to confirm that the flood and similar catastrophic events can account for the presence of fossiles, even in a relatively young earth. 

I'm also aware that dating methods are highly biased, and that carbon dating is incredibly scetchy. Does dating based on fossile records go something like this:

1. we have x layers of fossils.
2. it takes about x number of years for a fossil to form
3. therefore, when you add fossil layers a, b, and c together, you figure the earth must be x years old.

I seem to remember people who favor the cataclysmic view of Genesis 1 seem to cite the fossil record.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...



Six 24hr. days.


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 6, 2006)

I was a staunch literalist until I watched Kent Hovind debate Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg show. Man was that hilarious! 

Persbyrino, I can see the building in your avatar from my desk at work.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 7, 2006)

Here's what I think about this:

I think we should all remember that if ( hypothetically ) a denomination, say, I ( variable ) P ( Presbyterian ) C ( Church ) of X ( variable ) , the IPCX, votes that the Gap Theory is a permissible view under the Confessions, then it is _de facto_ the case that the literal seven-day view is not the official doctrinal stance of that denomination. If the seven-day view is a doctrinal stance, then the other views cannot be deemed as _adiaphora_, indifferent. Likewise, if any of the views, such as the Gap Theory, is viewed as _adiaphora_, then if follows that the seven-day view is also at best _adiaphora_. A differing or competing view cannot be indifferent to the official doctrinal view. 

Where there is difference of views allowed, there lacks a doctrinal stance of a specific view. 

The question is, then, whether the IPCX is being faithful to the Confessions, or whether the Confessions are not as clearly six-day as we like to believe? We all have our views, but none of us individually or as a group is greater than the church.

Therefore, going one step further, it is not right for an office-bearer to go beyond the authority of his church to declare as authoritative what the deonomination has not declared authoritative. 

In another thread I came down kind of strong on a respected church leader for standing for one view over against another, by use of his office. But I also said what it was that I would teach if I had the office to teach. As much as I hold to the six-day view, it may be the fact that it is not the official view of the church, or is not deemed doctrinal. Just teaching the six-day view, because I think its Biblical and right, but is not the denomination's decision on it, would then not be in union with the church which has authorized me to teach. If an office was my responsibility, then union and mutual support would be a part of that office. A board of elders does not work if they are against each other, instead of able to count on each others' support. 

I voted seven day. I think it stands alone among all the views as the one that the Bible mentions. But I wouldn't divide the church over it. I would take exception to an elder or minister thinking that they then have the right to teach whatever view they themselves are convinced of or want. But that has nothing to do with the views themselves; its a matter of office and authority.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Presbyrino_
> My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.
> 
> Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.
> ...



I must confess. My ape-like finger clicked when it shouldn't have. But I did think that answer was funny.

I'm a 6 dayer, but I'm not committed to the 24 hour part. After all, in Joshua's day there was a long day too. I'm comfortable with it being six literal days of creation and leaving the stopwatch out of it.

Vic


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 7, 2006)

There is, of course, a serious problem with believing in a literal six-day creation....................






......................Why did it take so long?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I would've voted...but you didn't have the literal 6 24hr day option up there...I believe God rested on the 7th...
> 
> (yes, I'm being ornery)


Ah, yes, except that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 covers a *7* day period. Are you saying that Gen 2:3 really refers to the 6th 24 hour day?!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> On fossil strata and so forth . . .
> 
> A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days.




Matt,

With respect, you are way off base. There is no possible way (of which I am aware) that the distribution of fossils could be caused by a worldwide flood (or any other cataclysmic event). Your theory was touted quite a while back by Henry Morris, and is not remotely tenable. Of course, God can do what He wants. But if the fossil layers were distributed in the flood, then God intentionally miraculously made them lay out in such a way that it would emphatically appear impossible that they were laid out in the flood. In other words, one would have to assume that God worked a miracle in order to deceive us.

It would be a possibility if there was a moderately heterogeneous distribution of fossils. But they are not at all heterogeneous. You never find elephant bones in the same layer as T-Rex bones. You never find mouse fossils at the same layers as dinosaur fossils. You never find dolphin fossils at the same layers as trilobyte fossils. 

Simply put: 
The distribution of fossils is utterly impossible to explain by means of a worldwide flood. 


If you want to argue against evolution, great. But please do not use arguments such as this one. Bad science does nothing to help our cause. It just makes people laugh at us (and rightfully so, in this case).

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Puddleglum (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



Joseph,

Are there some articles out there which explain this a little more thoroughly (both why the catastrophic event theory is wrong, and whatever their alternative is)? The only two positions that I'm relatively familiar with are the catastrophic event (=Flood) and evolution . . . 

Thanks,

-Jess


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> ...




I'll see what I can find. I have read stacks and stacks of books and articles and web pages on creation/evolution from every angle, and it has gotten to the point that I don't remember where I read what. 

The bottom line is that the fossils are too neatly stratified to be explained by means of a flood. If elephants, tigers, dinosaurs, trilobytes, dolphins, mice, eagles, and pterodactyls all got fossilized at the same time, then there should be a moderate amount of mixing together in the fossil records. You should be able to find elephant bones in the same layers as dinosaur bones, for example. But that never happens. The most straightforward explanation is simply that dinosaurs were fossilized before elephants were, eagles were fossilized after pterodactyls were, etc. Note that I am not making any assertions about _how much time passed_ in between fossilizations. To determine that kind of thing, you get into detailed discussions about radiometric dating (NOT carbon dating). 

So I am not saying how long it took for the fossil record to be laid out. I am just saying that there is no way it occurred by means of a global flood.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 8, 2006)

> You never find elephant bones in the same layer as T-Rex bones.



Wow. I guess all the scientists were wrong when, in the tar flats of the Midwest US and in strata in Vermont they found shellfish, mammals (as I recall some kind of deer or in the deer family), human footprints and dinosaur bones all in the same tar layer. 

God didn't deceive anyone, and Ross' nonsense in purporting theistic evolution tries to say that God "deceived" us because the universe has the appearance of age. Maybe, if one took five seconds to read Genesis 1, they would see that God actually created everything (including Adam) as mature. But that would be too easy.

Ask an Israelite what he would have thought after Moses wrote Genesis 1.

The Assembly vehemently disagrees with theistic evolution, day age theories, gap theories and all the other "hopefully" Darwinianism that is out there. 

"It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, *in the space of six days*; and all very good."

And they didn't mean "ages".

Its not bad science, its biblical fact that hold scientific reality.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2006)

I'm definately with Matt on this one.... (Yes, that's my bubble pipe for when I'm thinking)

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> I guess all the scientists were wrong when, in the tar flats of the Midwest US and in strata in Vermont they found shellfish, mammals (as I recall some kind of deer or in the deer family), human footprints and dinosaur bones all in the same tar layer.



I challenge you, Colleen, or anyone else to back up this statement with evidence. I think you're blowing smoke.



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> God didn't deceive anyone



I never said that He did. I just said that He _would be_ if a person were to accept your theory.



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> The Assembly vehemently disagrees with theistic evolution, day age theories, gap theories and all the other "hopefully" Darwinianism that is out there.



Who are you arguing with? I didn't vote for darwinianism, evolution, etc.

All that I said is that you cannot account for the Earth's fossils by assuming Noah's Flood as the cause. It is an utter impossibility.

Come up with some other non-evolutionistic theory to account for the fossils. That's fine. But don't spout off garbage with no scientific backing. A flood simply could not naturally deposit fossils in the strata as we have them.


I'm looking forward to seeing your "Vermont tar layer" proof. I would be very interested in learning more about it, if it is true. That would certainly be something totally different from what has been found in the fossil layers elsewhere throughout the world. It would certainly count as a very important find!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2006)

http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm



Colleen, the title of the article is, "Scientific Evidence for Rapid Deposition of Sediments".

I totally AGREE that sedments can be deposited rapidly. And I even believe that a number of fossils probably can be attributed to Noah's flood.

I am quite aware of polystrate fossils, as well.


So you are preaching to the choir. My argument is very specific:

I do not believe that a worldwide flood can account for the fossil strata we see deposited worldwide.


Was Noah's flood global? Possibly. But that's not what brought about all the world's fossil layers.

Can fossils be made quickly? Yes. But that still doesn't mean that all the world's fossils were laid down at the same time.


Specifically, I would like to see some solid proof that dino bones, elephant bones, tiger bones, eagle bones, pterodactyl bones, etc., have been found coexisting in the same fossil layer. THAT is what I am saying has not been found. And if the fossils are not heterogeneous in that way, then they were not laid down simultaneously by a global flood. That doesn't mean there was no flood . . . it just means the flood didn't cause the fossil layers.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 8, 2006)

Also, Colleen, I would recommend using more reputable sources that the webpage you referenced. Just for example, I found this quote on there:



> The Earth May Not Be "Billions of Years" Old After All!!!
> That's because there are some (tiny little) Major PROBLEMS with Radiometric Dating
> 
> What if any Carbon 14 date over 5,000 years old is known to be unreliable?



I would recommend completely ignoring any website that uses arguments like that. It is proof that they don't have a clue about what scientists are even claiming. 

The fact is that NOBODY in the scientific world uses Carbon 14 dating to date ANYTHING in the millions or billions of years. They ALL know that the 1/2 life of Carbon 14 is around 5,000 years, and becomes unreliable at very high ages.

Again, I want to be clear: I don't mind if a person wants to argue for a young earth. That's fine. But I will scream if one more person tries to bash Carbon 14 dating as a way to "prove" that the earth is young. Sorry, but not even atheistic scientists use Carbon 14 dating for those kinds of claims, so you just aren't going to convince anyone with that argument.


----------

