Creation question.....

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

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

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

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

 

[A5pointer]

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

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

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

 

[A5pointer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A5pointer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

:shakehand:

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

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

 

[A5pointer]

Peace brother, I am feeling dizzzy myself.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

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

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe it is just this simple!

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

 

[BlackCalvinist]

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

I'm missing something. I'm slow.

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

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

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

The text doesn't say.

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

 

[Christusregnat]

Joseph

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

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

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

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

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

"TR" = Old Puritan

 

[Grymir]

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

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

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

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

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

Adam

 

[DMcFadden]

Gentlemen:

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

From an earlier post by AV1611:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AV1611]

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[A5pointer]

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

Hallman writes on pg 211

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

And on pgs 218-219

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

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

 

[AV1611]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Waltke notes:

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

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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

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

 

[A5pointer]

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

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

Ah, the cavalry is watching and poised for action

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

Comments by Wayne Grudem:

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

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

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

 

[AV1611]

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

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

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

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

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

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

CT

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

CT

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

CT

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

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

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

CT

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

CT

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

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

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

CT

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

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

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

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