# Why Evolution Is Impossible



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 5, 2007)

Why Evolution is Impossible

Gary Demar has a good piece on his site today.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 5, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Why Evolution is Impossible
> 
> Gary Demar has a good piece on his site today.



It is impossible as it contradicts Genesis chapter 1. And for a whole load of other reasons as well.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 5, 2007)

I love this comic. I used to have the t-shirt.







The evolutionists have to borrow our worldview at some point or the system can never work. In the end, whatever they do not borrow turns out to be absurd.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I love this comic. I used to have the t-shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is the t-shirt still available?


----------



## sotzo (Dec 5, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Why Evolution is Impossible
> 
> Gary Demar has a good piece on his site today.



Would most here say that _*theistic*_ evolution is impossible?


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 5, 2007)

Theistic evolution is more possible because it borrows some from a theistic worldview. It's still a prop for evolution and it's not the least bit necessary. Theistic evolution denies less of scripture than evolution but it still denies the authority and veracity of scripture.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Why Evolution is Impossible
> ...



No, not impossible. But all the same it didn't happen.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 5, 2007)

No sorry Ivan, it was shrunk, torn and stained so I threw it out. You know I would give you the shirt off my back though.

I'm kidding. I knew what you mean't. I bought it at the Chicago Museum of Science but you can get it online here and there. Try googling 'then a miracle occurs t-shirt'.




Ivan said:


> Is the t-shirt still available?


----------



## sotzo (Dec 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Theistic evolution is more possible because it borrows some from a theistic worldview. It's still a prop for evolution and it's not the least bit necessary. Theistic evolution denies less of scripture than evolution but it still denies the authority and veracity of scripture.



OK. Must one hold to 24 hr periods for the seven days of creation in order to hold to the authority and veracity of Scripture? What I'm really asking is are there other views outside of the 24 hr, young earth view that you and others here would see as permitted/possible based on sound exegesis? 

BTW, when are the WWBD bracelets going to be made available on PBay?? I think they would make fine stocking stuffers.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> No sorry Ivan, it was shrunk, torn and stained so I threw it out. You know I would give you the shirt off my back though.
> 
> I'm kidding. I knew what you mean't. I bought it at the Chicago Museum of Science but you can get it online here and there. Try googling 'then a miracle occurs t-shirt'.



Although shrunk, torn and stained I think you still have that old t-shirt....come on, man. I'll give you ten bucks for it. OH, okay! I'll google!!


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> OK. Must one hold to 24 hr periods for the seven days of creation in order to hold to the authority and veracity of Scripture? What I'm really asking is are there other views outside of the 24 hr, young earth view that you and others here would see as permitted/possible based on sound exegesis?



The problem is that any view other than the prima facie understanding of Gen. 1 depends in some measure on the conclusions of materialistic scientists. If it were a simple matter of a fellow Christian asking us to consider something we may have missed in Scripture itself, there would be no hesitation; but the fact is, many adopt the theory of Hodge that science has not yet had its final say, and leave the Bible open to reinterpretation on the basis of external pressures. This produces a lamentable result, because it means the Bible is not permitted to speak for itself, but exegesis is conducted under the facade of accommodating so-called respectable opinions of men.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > Theistic evolution is more possible because it borrows some from a theistic worldview. It's still a prop for evolution and it's not the least bit necessary. Theistic evolution denies less of scripture than evolution but it still denies the authority and veracity of scripture.
> ...




From an exegetical standpoint any view other than literal 6 day, 24 hour creation is out of the question. What did Moses' audience think he was talking about: 6, 24 hour days, or millions of years? Moreover, the fourth commandment makes it pretty clear that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, the same is to be our pattern. Does that mean that we work for millions of years before taking the Sabbath off?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 5, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > BobVigneault said:
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 5, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > BobVigneault said:
> ...



I'm a bit pickier still. I don't go for the 24 hour part of the test. Scripture doesn't give us hours. God didn't provide a clock to measure the period.

It is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, and not go beyond that.


----------



## sotzo (Dec 5, 2007)

> The problem is that any view other than the prima facie understanding of Gen. 1 depends in some measure on the conclusions of materialistic scientists. If it were a simple matter of a fellow Christian asking us to consider something we may have missed in Scripture itself, there would be no hesitation; but the fact is, many adopt the theory of Hodge that science has not yet had its final say, and leave the Bible open to reinterpretation on the basis of external pressures. This produces a lamentable result, because it means the Bible is not permitted to speak for itself, but exegesis is conducted under the facade of accommodating so-called respectable opinions of men.



But aren't the literary tools used to interpret Scripture themselves derived from human endeavors? For example, the work Kline has done on the ancient near east treaty formulations has provided some solid ground on which to understand OT covenants. These were extra-biblical discoveries / research upon which Scripture was further assessed. Also, more generally, God's acts and the biblical record of them are bound up in history. History is open to investigation. Historical and natural sciences are sometimes part of that investigation. While Scripture always has primacy over human thought, admitting no human thought to its interpretation (including thinking on natural sciences) doesn't seem possible.


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> But aren't the literary tools used to interpret Scripture themselves derived from human endeavors? For example, the work Kline has done on the ancient near east treaty formulations has provided some solid ground on which to understand OT covenants. These were extra-biblical discoveries / research upon which Scripture was further assessed. Also, more generally, God's acts and the biblical record of them are bound up in history. History is open to investigation. Historical and natural sciences are sometimes part of that investigation. While Scripture always has primacy over human thought, admitting no human thought to its interpretation (including thinking on natural sciences) doesn't seem possible.



It's one thing to use reason to understand revelation; its quite another thing to impose reason on revelation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > sotzo said:
> ...




If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.


----------



## sotzo (Dec 6, 2007)

> It's one thing to use reason to understand revelation; its quite another thing to impose reason on revelation.



Agreed 100%. But where does one stop and the other begin?

If God had revealed contradictions to us, would we not have had to neccessarily question what was, in fact, true?

In other words,, reason is subject to revelation, but the means by which we understand it, so in a sense it is prior...right?


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt (Dec 6, 2007)

Responding to the thoughts in the article linked in the first post:

It seems that theories of truth come in two general categories: coherence and correspondence. A correspondence theory of truth (loosely, that something is true because it "corresponds" with an objective reality) appears to be the prevailing theory among the atheistic neo-Darwinists (indeed, their almost exclusive reliance on empirical verification requires this). This, of course, assumes the existence of both a subject and an object (a scientist and his test tube). The existence of an observing mind is a necessary precondition for this theory of truth, which immediately invalidates statements regarding the evolution of life (at least within an atheistic framework). 

"Life evolved from non-life x billion years ago" can only be true if there is an observing mind present, as noted above. Unless one grants the existence of an observing mind prior to the time when life evolved from non-life, then this statement can not be true according to the theory of truth implicit in the statement itself.

(A common response is that the statement is true with reference from our viewpoint as observing the past. But how can a statement be true _now_ with reference to something that was not true at the time it purportedly occurred?)

This creates a real dilemma, since one must either grant the existence of a real subject observing the evolution of life from non-life (which means abandoning atheism or adopting immensely silly views regading little green men) or abandon a correspondence theory of truth... even though a coherence theory offers even less hope for the dogmatism of Darwinism. Or commit the unforgivable sin: abandon evolution.

Thoughts?


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 6, 2007)

For most of my ministry, I simply accepted what the Progressive Creationists (most seminary profs) and Framework people (e.g., Kline) said. Only when my denomination began debating homosexuality, did I begin to realize that my hermeneutic which allowed accommodating billions of years in Genesis 1 was virtually identical to what the pro-gay mainliners where saying about Romans 1. Rethinking the consistency of my position, reading widely in the Answers in Genesis site, and doing some more reading on literary genre and hermeneutics led me back to the "normal" reading of Genesis 1-11. 

BTW, if you want to consider the issue from the scientific side by a ministry which is staunchly presuppositional in their apologetic, cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. They have gazillions of resources, including complete books for free online.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 6, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.



Daniel, are you sure that the earth rotated at the exact rate back at creation as presently? I don't think we can say that--scripture doesn't go into it. The rotation rate has measurably decreased in our time. That's why I think the 24 hour element is introducing specificity that scripture doesn't need.

I'd go with "morning and evening, day one" as the Hebrew puts it. I'm uncomfortable trying to be more precise than the information given allows.


----------



## MW (Dec 6, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > It's one thing to use reason to understand revelation; its quite another thing to impose reason on revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, reason is not prior to revelation. "Contradiction" is a good place to start. Who determines that contradiction will be no part of the Christian system? Not us, but God. Therefore revelation is prior to reason. We think God's thoughts after Him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 6, 2007)

I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.

Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Dec 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.
> 
> Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.


Well there are some people on this board that think fooz ball is from the Devil.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.
> 
> Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.



The Professor: Well, mama is wrong.

Adam Sandler: No, Colonel Sanders, you're wrong (then tackles him)


----------



## Seb (Dec 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
> ...



I've always had a problem with the "24 hour" day issue. I want to believe it, but some things (even without science) just don't fit. 

I think there are some problems within Scripture itself concerning creation day-length. 

For example: All the things accomplished on Day 6: 
All land based creatures were created (Gen 1:25), 
Adam was created (Gen 1:27), 
Adam names all the animals (Gen 2:19), 
God puts Adam to sleep and then creates Eve (Gen 1:27 + 2:22). 

Am I reading this all wrong or is that a lot for a man to do in just 12 hours of daylight?

I take a O.T. "day" to be a cycle. In Moses' time wasn't it: sunset > night time > sunrise > daytime > sunset = 1 day? In that case my "day" today is only 23 hour 59 minutes long because the Sun is moving south and the days are getting shorter.

When I speak of a "day" on Venus (5392 hours) isn't the day/night cycle what I would be referring to instead of 24 hours? 

If we stayed only in scripture to understand God's creation, wouldn't we still think the Sun circled the Earth?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
> ...



I think 24 hours is a round figure for an ordinary day. Consequently, I would not consider 23 hours 59 minutes as heresy.


----------



## Seb (Dec 6, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I think 24 hours is a round figure for an ordinary day. Consequently, I would not consider 23 hours 59 minutes as heresy.



I agree - not heresy. But does anyone know when "we" moved from a cycle-based day to a standardized 24 day?


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.
> 
> Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.



Thank you Waterboy (aka Adam Sandler)!

BTW - for those who learn their science on television, Bobby Boucher had another good quote: "Look Who's on TV mama... it's the devil."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 6, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.
> ...





I know we digress but Sandler is one of those guys I _never_ expected to make it big. He used to annoy me with some of his characters on SNL but he is, by far, the most successful movie maker that SNL has ever produced. Almost every single one of his movies is funny and/or really good.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

Seb said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


----------



## Seb (Dec 7, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Seb said:
> 
> 
> > I agree - not heresy. But does anyone know when "we" moved from a cycle-based day to a standardized 24 day?
> ...



Isn't that what the whole 6 days creation issues about? The definition of a day in Genesis? Is it time based or cycle based?

Honestly, I struggle with this one. The more I try to fit a 6x24 creation into my understanding the more questions I have. I've been through a lot of Ken Ham's site (Answers in Genesis) There some good points, but sometimes he stretches a little too far. And I've never been a fan of his go-to answer of "Where you there?"

I guess my question is.. Is the 6x24 creation an issue we can be dogmatic about? I am dogmatic that God created all that I see (and don't) . Evolution ,as an answer, is a lie.

If I'm being heretical in questioning a 6x24 creation, God forgive me... I sure don't mean to be.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

Seb said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Seb said:
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 7, 2007)

Seb said:


> And I've never been a fan of his go-to answer of "Where you there?"



I think what you describe as a "go-to answer" is more of a cute rhetorical device than anything else.

Russell Grigg's short piece comes pretty close to what I believe:

_Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew 'time' words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.

*Meaning of yôm*
When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. 

Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours. 

*Some Hebrew ‘time’ words*
There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time. These include qedem which is the main one–word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used. 

*1. Event of long ago*
If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it: 

yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age. 

qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'. 

olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'. 

So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 

*2. A continuing event from long ago*
If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it: 

dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant. 

olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18. 

tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'. 

ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'. 

shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural. 

yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time. 

Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 

*3. Ambiguous time*
If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it: 

yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous. 

eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these. 

*Author’s Intention*
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand: 

*1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author.* In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable. It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms. 

Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on. 

Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred. 

*Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.*

*2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis.* The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible. 

*3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality.* If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power.

*4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years.* Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution. 

*Conclusion*
In Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day. 

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:

'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' _

Orthodox stalwart, Charles Hodge, struggled with this same issue. Living in an age of universal uniformitarian geology, he opted for a compromising position because:

*‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’*

As a good presuppositionalist, I would argue that Hodge was not forced to choose between the plain meaning of Genesis and geological facts. Rather, he elected to accept the arguments of those with a worldview involving a constellation of uniformitarian interpretations of facts against the plain teaching of Genesis. Thanks to people like Ken Ham and the PhD geologists, astronomers, and biologists working at Answers in Genesis, we now know that the "facts" are susceptible to other interpretative schema other than the uniformitarian one. In fact, I would turn Hodge's quote on its head:

_*Since it is of course admitted that, taking the account in Genesis by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word "day" in its ordinary sense; and since we see that the facts of geology and biology can be reconciled with a worldview that involves a more natural reading of Genesis, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the Biblical view and not another (MY revision).*_

Frankly, most of my ministry was spent in the Progressive Creation/Framework camps. It was not until I began doing battle with heresy in my denomination in other areas (e.g., human sexuality) and came upon the fact that R.C. Sproul and Al Mohler had changed to the young-earth view, that I returned to the books and reconsidered the issue.

Most of us had profs who taught us Progressive Creation or some form of the Framework Theory. Were we heretical for believing those who God gave to us as instructors? I don't think that it rises to the level of heresy. However, was it a serious error to hold to what the vast majority of evangelicals believe about creation? I am strongly convinced that it is so.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 7, 2007)

I grew up with a strong _faith_ in science and only a moderate respect for ancient scripture. I completely bought into the idea that the days of Genesis 1 could be reconciled with science by considering them to be metaphors. By early adulthood I was a pretty hardheaded scientist, being trained in physics, geomorphology, biology. I ended up doing research in soil science and I was working on a theory that life began in a soil matrix rather than the ocean. No way would I consider evolution to be wrong--it was so obvious to me.

Nevertheless, God converted me in my 40s. I decided to study scripture and take it seriously. Old views fell hard, but fall they did, because the plain choice was presented to me: do I believe God's scripture or do I believe what I want and make scripture fit it? In reality, I had no choice, my hard-won views of science had to yield. Much of it started from actually trying to read Genesis 1-2 in Hebrew and not reading about what people said about these passages.

Without getting real technical (which I don’t really have the skill to do), I think it is a real strain from the text to consider the days of Genesis 1 to be anything other than actual days. First, the Hebrew names the light “day” and the dark “night”. It puts the word for day in the singular. Each time a day is mentioned, it is associated with a number. It precedes each day with “evening and morning.”

In Genesis 1:5, the last phrase “were the first day” literally reads “day one.”

So, contextually, I think any normal reader would take the day to be a standard normal everyday day.

Moses did have the skills and words to write about periods of time. The confusion comes up, I think, because these statements also use the word for “day” in Hebrew, but usually it is in the plural and in context with different words. 

For example, Genesis 4:3: “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.” In this case, the Hebrew reads something like “after the course of days” or maybe “after a process involving days”. Clearly this would mean a period of time.

Moses also had other words to indicate “season” or “period” not strictly limited to days. But in Genesis 1 and up through Gen 2:2, Moses was directed to used the word for a singular day— yom יֹום
. It doesn’t read poetically or metaphorically. At face value it seems to be what it is, a day.


Edit: Had I seen Dennis McFadden's excellent post above, I wouldn't have gone into this so much. Sorry for the redundancy.


----------



## Seb (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks Vic, Daniel and Dennis. 

I guess I'm going to have to study this issue more and find a way to have my mind changed  + . It's just tough for me to work through some of the consequences of a 6x24 creation. Speed of light, distance of stars, all the events of day six fitting one day, etc. etc.

Maybe I should fall back to something more simple like Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, and the Problem of Evil.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

Seb said:


> Maybe I should fall back to something more simple like Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, and the Problem of Evil.




Now that is sarcasm.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Dec 7, 2007)

Seb said:


> Thanks Vic, Daniel and Dennis.
> 
> I guess I'm going to have to study this issue more and find a way to have my mind changed  + . It's just tough for me to work through some of the consequences of a 6x24 creation. Speed of light, distance of stars, all the events of day six fitting one day, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe I should fall back to something more simple like Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, and the Problem of Evil.



Here is an interesting article on the distance of the stars on the AIG website for a little research if you are interested.


----------



## Seb (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks Douglas,

I had glanced at that part of AiG before. I think I need to spend more time studying it the topic.

It seems there will always be some mystery / paradox associated with how God created all of this, in light what we understand from a science standpoint. I think they are reconcilable to a point, keeping in mind that Scripture trumps science every time.

Maybe I need to try and shift the solution for "mysterious part" away from the time issue (6x24) and more to the thinking of "How can this be explained while keeping creation in the 6x24 some 6000 +/- years ago"

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks though.


----------

