The six days of creation described in Genesis 1-2 are best described:
Days of Creation
- Thread starter fredtgreco
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'm gonna pick #1.
[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Scott Bushey]
[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Scott Bushey]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Me too! The only hesitation I have would be to describe it in 24 hrs. plus a few minutes if it weren't exactly 24 hrs. for each day. And the sun being made on the fourth day is not a problem.
I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.
(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)
[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV]
I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.
(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)
[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV]
[quote:1766fff485][i:1766fff485]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:1766fff485]
Me too! The only hesitation I have would be to describe it in 24 hrs. plus a few minutes if it weren't exactly 24 hrs. for each day. And the sun being made on the fourth day is not a problem.
I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.
(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)
[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV] [/quote:1766fff485]
That's why I phrased this as "natural" days, not "24 hour" days. :smilegrin:
Me too! The only hesitation I have would be to describe it in 24 hrs. plus a few minutes if it weren't exactly 24 hrs. for each day. And the sun being made on the fourth day is not a problem.
I believe that any other answer is necessitated by man-made theories, not scientific fact or Biblical inference.
(I'm sorry, that's supposed to be 24hrs. minus a few minutes, not plus. Boy, how quickly we forget our science lessons.)
[Edited on 10-5-2003 by JohnV] [/quote:1766fff485]
That's why I phrased this as "natural" days, not "24 hour" days. :smilegrin:
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
It is saddening how many "great" theologians have caved on this issue because they were intimidated by "science." The Hodges and Warfield both surrendered to the "geologists" on this issue and allowed for the non-literal days, unlike Berkof (who is rare among modern theologians in this) in going on the offensive and attacking the false assumptions and flaws of science and defending the reliability of Scripture on this issue. Let us pray that more of our pastors and theologians get a backbone and uphold this important truth of the Creation days.
My :wr50:
Puritan Sailor
My :wr50:
Puritan Sailor
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
"Yom" is used through chapter 1 to signify the natural day.
How do you define, or incorporate Gen. 2:4 in the continuing narrative?"
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, [b:27bc180c3d]in the day[/b:27bc180c3d] that the LORD God made the
earth and the heavens..."
Day here seems to change. Would anyone say there is warrant to incorporate this into the first chapter in ANY way?
How do you define, or incorporate Gen. 2:4 in the continuing narrative?"
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, [b:27bc180c3d]in the day[/b:27bc180c3d] that the LORD God made the
earth and the heavens..."
Day here seems to change. Would anyone say there is warrant to incorporate this into the first chapter in ANY way?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It's the same word. But it can only be speculated as to what it means, if it is used to call into question the use of the word in the first chapter. In Gen. 2:4 it could refer to the sixth or seventh day, referring to the finished creation, therefore using the same meaning. But if it is claimed that it refers to an unspecified length of time, there is no clue as to the length of time it refers to.
If this is used to allow an open view of any length of time that suits the interpreter, then it is a misuse of Scripture. An unspecified meaning is not meant to allow just any meaning, but is an unspecified meaning. Therefore the speculations that come out of such a use of that word are based on the groundlesnesss of the meaning.
Such a use takes for granted that one cannot legally be called on the carpet for his interpretation by his fellow men. It stands on the inexactness of the meaning, and not on something solid. it also assumes that the natural meaning of day is NOT the meaning, when there is no ground for that assumption. Calling the meaning into question does not provide the ground for another meaning; that still needs to be established. And there is less ground for another meaning than there is for the natural meaning.
If this is used to allow an open view of any length of time that suits the interpreter, then it is a misuse of Scripture. An unspecified meaning is not meant to allow just any meaning, but is an unspecified meaning. Therefore the speculations that come out of such a use of that word are based on the groundlesnesss of the meaning.
Such a use takes for granted that one cannot legally be called on the carpet for his interpretation by his fellow men. It stands on the inexactness of the meaning, and not on something solid. it also assumes that the natural meaning of day is NOT the meaning, when there is no ground for that assumption. Calling the meaning into question does not provide the ground for another meaning; that still needs to be established. And there is less ground for another meaning than there is for the natural meaning.
[quote:eb1e4e4942][b:eb1e4e4942]Scripture and Creation[/b:eb1e4e4942]
Any attempt to deny a process of creation involving a series of successive divine fiats stretching out over a period of only six literal days is manifestly contrary to the plain, historical sense of Scripture. The Hebrew word yom ("day"
in the Genesis 1 account of creation should be understood in a normal sense of a 24-hour period, for the following reasons:
(1) Argument from primary meaning. The preponderant usage of the word Yom ("day" in the Old Testament is of a normal day as experienced regularly by man (though it may be limited to the hours of light, as per common understanding). The word occurs 1704 times in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority of which have to do with the normal cycle of daily earth time. Preponderant usage of a term should be maintained in exegetical analysis unless contextual forces compel otherwise. This is particularly so in historical narrative. R. L. Dabney points out:
The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense.... It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context.
(2) Argument from explicit qualification. Moses carefully qualifies each of the six creative days with the phraseology: "evening and morning."The qualification is a deliberate defining of the concept of day. Outside of Genesis 1 the words "evening"and "morning"occur together in thirty-seven verses. In each instance it speaks of a normal day. Examples from Moses include:
Exodus 18:13: "And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening."
Exodus 27:21: "In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD."
R. L. Dabney argues that this evidence alone should compel adoption of a literal-day view:
The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation, by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, 'morning and evening.'... It is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second 'day'; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs:-one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time.
(3) Argument from ordinal prefix. In the 119 cases in Moses' writings where the Hebrew word Yom stands in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.), it never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside the Pentateuch, where numerical adjectives occur.
Examples include:
Leviticus 12:3: "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."
Exodus 12:15: "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel."
Exodus 24:16: "Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud."
The Genesis 1 account of creation consistently applies the ordinal prefix to the day descriptions, along with "evening and morning"qualifiers (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
(4) Argument from coherent usage. The word Yom is used of the creative days of four, five, and six, which occur after the creation of the sun, which was expressly designated to "rule"the day/night pattern (Gen. 1:14). The identical word (Yom) and phraseology ("evening and morning,"numerical adjectives) associated with days four through six are employed of days one through three, which compel us to understand those days as normal earth days.
(5) Argument from divine exemplar. In Exodus 20:9-11 (the Fourth Commandment) God specifically patterns man's work week after his own original creational work week. Man's work week is expressly tied to God's: "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth"(Ex. 20:11 ). On two occasions in Moses' writings this rationale is used:
Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Exodus 31:15-17: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed."
Dabney's comments are helpful: "In Gen. ii:2, 3; Ex. xx:11, God's creating the world and its creatures in six days, and resting the seventh, is given as the ground of His sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day; why not the former? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak."
(6) Argument from plural expression. In Exodus 20:11 God's creation week is spoken of as involving "six days"(yammim), plural. In the 608 instances of the plural "days" in the Old Testament, we never find any other meaning than normal days. Ages are never expressed as yammim.
(7) Argument from alternative idiom. Had Moses intended to express the notion that the creation covered eras, he could have employed the term olam. Even the resting of God on the "seventh day"does not express his eternal rest, for it would also imply not only his continual rest but also his continual blessing of creation, as if sin never intervened: Genesis 2:3 -"Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."[/quote:eb1e4e4942]
From "Reformed Theology and Six-Day Creation" by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. September 1998.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/gentry.shtml
Any attempt to deny a process of creation involving a series of successive divine fiats stretching out over a period of only six literal days is manifestly contrary to the plain, historical sense of Scripture. The Hebrew word yom ("day"
in the Genesis 1 account of creation should be understood in a normal sense of a 24-hour period, for the following reasons: (1) Argument from primary meaning. The preponderant usage of the word Yom ("day"
in the Old Testament is of a normal day as experienced regularly by man (though it may be limited to the hours of light, as per common understanding). The word occurs 1704 times in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority of which have to do with the normal cycle of daily earth time. Preponderant usage of a term should be maintained in exegetical analysis unless contextual forces compel otherwise. This is particularly so in historical narrative. R. L. Dabney points out: The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense.... It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context.
(2) Argument from explicit qualification. Moses carefully qualifies each of the six creative days with the phraseology: "evening and morning."The qualification is a deliberate defining of the concept of day. Outside of Genesis 1 the words "evening"and "morning"occur together in thirty-seven verses. In each instance it speaks of a normal day. Examples from Moses include:
Exodus 18:13: "And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening."
Exodus 27:21: "In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD."
R. L. Dabney argues that this evidence alone should compel adoption of a literal-day view:
The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation, by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, 'morning and evening.'... It is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second 'day'; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs:-one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time.
(3) Argument from ordinal prefix. In the 119 cases in Moses' writings where the Hebrew word Yom stands in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.), it never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside the Pentateuch, where numerical adjectives occur.
Examples include:
Leviticus 12:3: "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."
Exodus 12:15: "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel."
Exodus 24:16: "Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud."
The Genesis 1 account of creation consistently applies the ordinal prefix to the day descriptions, along with "evening and morning"qualifiers (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
(4) Argument from coherent usage. The word Yom is used of the creative days of four, five, and six, which occur after the creation of the sun, which was expressly designated to "rule"the day/night pattern (Gen. 1:14). The identical word (Yom) and phraseology ("evening and morning,"numerical adjectives) associated with days four through six are employed of days one through three, which compel us to understand those days as normal earth days.
(5) Argument from divine exemplar. In Exodus 20:9-11 (the Fourth Commandment) God specifically patterns man's work week after his own original creational work week. Man's work week is expressly tied to God's: "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth"(Ex. 20:11 ). On two occasions in Moses' writings this rationale is used:
Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Exodus 31:15-17: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed."
Dabney's comments are helpful: "In Gen. ii:2, 3; Ex. xx:11, God's creating the world and its creatures in six days, and resting the seventh, is given as the ground of His sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day; why not the former? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak."
(6) Argument from plural expression. In Exodus 20:11 God's creation week is spoken of as involving "six days"(yammim), plural. In the 608 instances of the plural "days" in the Old Testament, we never find any other meaning than normal days. Ages are never expressed as yammim.
(7) Argument from alternative idiom. Had Moses intended to express the notion that the creation covered eras, he could have employed the term olam. Even the resting of God on the "seventh day"does not express his eternal rest, for it would also imply not only his continual rest but also his continual blessing of creation, as if sin never intervened: Genesis 2:3 -"Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."[/quote:eb1e4e4942]
From "Reformed Theology and Six-Day Creation" by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. September 1998.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/gentry.shtml
A candidate for Ordination at our church answered the question this way:
[quote:877d85181e][b:877d85181e]State your convictions concerning the creation/evolution debate, with Biblical reasons behind your beliefs. [/b:877d85181e]
As a Christian, I believe in creation. I firmly trust in God's account of the creation of the species rather than in the problematic theory of evolution. While it is logically possible to both believe in God as a first cause while also embracing the theory of evolution, one could not do so while believing in the God of Scripture. Evolution is incompatible with biblical Christianity. First and foremost, the whole counsel of the word of God teaches that death was the result of man's sin. Evolutionism teaches that death is a natural part of life, that death and struggle have always existed and actually led to man's existence. It claims that the fossil record points to an age long ago, billions of years before the first man. The fossils, however, are clear evidence of death - bloodshed on a massive scale. If all this bloodshed existed before Adam, the foundation of the Gospel is cut at its roots. The counsel of God's Word teaches that Adam sinned and then Paradise was corrupted. Death was the penalty of Adam's sin. As a result, sin, death, and suffering came upon not only Adam but also the entire world he had ruled, including his offspring. Jesus Christ came as our Messiah to save sinners and conquer death. He did "taste death for everyone" (Heb.2:9). Ultimately, He will restore Paradise where there will once again be life with no death. The notion that death existed billions of years before man's existence directly contradicts the Bible's account that death was the penalty for the first man's disobedience.
The idea of "theistic evolution", which attempts to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution by expanding the 6 days of creation to six long ages, appears as ludicrous to the true believer of evolution as it does to the true believer of the word of God. The insurmountable problem of the "six ages" theory is that the order of God's creation is all wrong for evolution. Plants were created on day 3 whereas insects were created on day 6. Evolutionary theory teaches that flowering plants and pollinating insects evolved together through mutual benefit. Evolution says that stars existed before the earth while Genesis says that the earth and its plants (day 3) existed before the stars (day 4). Evolution claims that the first living things were sea organisms (day 5) while Genesis teaches that full-blown land plants were first (day 3). Evolution claims that Earth's plant life produced our oxygen-rich atmosphere, but Genesis teaches that Earth's life-supporting atmosphere was created before the plants on day 2.
Evolutionary theory also claims that fish evolved long before the first fruit tree, whereas Genesis reveals that God created the fruit trees on day 3 and the fish on day 5. Evolution also teaches that man has been carnivorous, or at least omnivorous, from the beginning. God, however, did not sanction meat eating until after the great flood (compare Gen.1:29 with 9:3).
There are compelling Scriptural reasons why we must interpret the six days of Creation as literal twenty-four hour days. The Hebrew word yom is translated "day" in Genesis chapter one. All of the uses of yom elsewhere in God's Word mean a literal twenty-four hour day when prefixed by a numeral adjective as it is in the first chapter of Genesis. Yom without a numeral adjective infrequently means a distinct period of time such as in Isaiah 17:7: "In that day man will have regard for his Maker, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel." However, yom is prefixed by a numeral adjective here, and the repeated reference to "evening and morning" after each of the creation days makes it all the more clear that these are to be understood as literal days, not ages. I can conceive of no way that God could have made it any more obvious that He was describing normal twenty-four hour days. The phrase "evening and morning" is repeated after every single "day" in Genesis 1.
The most compelling reason for accepting the days of creation as six twenty-four hour days comes not from Genesis but
from Exodus. Here, we learn that God created in six literal days for a specific purpose. God worked six days to provide an example for man to follow. The Bible says:
[i:877d85181e]"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."[/i:877d85181e] (Ex.20:9-11)
The Hebrew word yamin which above is translated "days" is used some 700 times in the Bible and has never even once meant anything other than literal days. Yamin is the word used above in both verse 9 which refers to the
literal days that man "shall labor" and in verse 11 which refers to the six literal days of God's act of creation. That God created in six yamin, in six literal days, is indisputable here. The above passage was written in tablets of stone directly by God Himself (Ex.24:12, Ex.31:17-18, Deut.9:10). God was indeed mindful of man from the very beginning. The whole reason for God creating in six literal days was to provide an example to man as revealed to us in the Ten Commandments.
Every measurement we have for the passage of time is regulated by some natural cycle or some division thereof except for the week, which has no rational explanation outside of Scripture. The day which we divide into hours, minutes, and seconds is governed by the earth's rotation. The months are governed by the orbit of the moon around the earth. The year is governed by the orbit of the earth around the sun, and its seasons are governed by the tilt of the earth's axis as it makes its orbit around the sun. The week is governed by nothing in all creation but by the Creator alone. Inexplicably to secular anthropologists, the seven day week is universal among all human calendars. Uniquely, the week was given to us as an example to follow by God Himself, and it points as both a sign and a reminder to His sovereign act of creation. The Ten Commandments were spoken by the voice of God and written in stone by the finger of God. Scripture does not get any more inspired than that! Thus the "days" of
creation must be taken literally. To do otherwise is to blaspheme God by calling Him a liar and to mock rather than honor the Sabbath.
When it comes to the six literal days of creation, God left even the greatest skeptic among us with very little choice. For we know that He Himself said it by His own voice, and we know that it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18). The big question that Adam and Eve were asked was, "Did God really say . . .?" After they questioned His word, they fell. That seductive serpent the devil still asks, "Has God really said?" Did God
really say "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them"? While today's liberal theologians answer in the negative, I join the chorus of orthodox Christian believers who emphatically answers in the positive. How one answers determines not only one's view of holy Scripture but also one's relationship to the God of holy Scripture.
[/quote:877d85181e]
That pretty much sums it up!
Phillip :saint2:
[quote:877d85181e][b:877d85181e]State your convictions concerning the creation/evolution debate, with Biblical reasons behind your beliefs. [/b:877d85181e]
As a Christian, I believe in creation. I firmly trust in God's account of the creation of the species rather than in the problematic theory of evolution. While it is logically possible to both believe in God as a first cause while also embracing the theory of evolution, one could not do so while believing in the God of Scripture. Evolution is incompatible with biblical Christianity. First and foremost, the whole counsel of the word of God teaches that death was the result of man's sin. Evolutionism teaches that death is a natural part of life, that death and struggle have always existed and actually led to man's existence. It claims that the fossil record points to an age long ago, billions of years before the first man. The fossils, however, are clear evidence of death - bloodshed on a massive scale. If all this bloodshed existed before Adam, the foundation of the Gospel is cut at its roots. The counsel of God's Word teaches that Adam sinned and then Paradise was corrupted. Death was the penalty of Adam's sin. As a result, sin, death, and suffering came upon not only Adam but also the entire world he had ruled, including his offspring. Jesus Christ came as our Messiah to save sinners and conquer death. He did "taste death for everyone" (Heb.2:9). Ultimately, He will restore Paradise where there will once again be life with no death. The notion that death existed billions of years before man's existence directly contradicts the Bible's account that death was the penalty for the first man's disobedience.
The idea of "theistic evolution", which attempts to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution by expanding the 6 days of creation to six long ages, appears as ludicrous to the true believer of evolution as it does to the true believer of the word of God. The insurmountable problem of the "six ages" theory is that the order of God's creation is all wrong for evolution. Plants were created on day 3 whereas insects were created on day 6. Evolutionary theory teaches that flowering plants and pollinating insects evolved together through mutual benefit. Evolution says that stars existed before the earth while Genesis says that the earth and its plants (day 3) existed before the stars (day 4). Evolution claims that the first living things were sea organisms (day 5) while Genesis teaches that full-blown land plants were first (day 3). Evolution claims that Earth's plant life produced our oxygen-rich atmosphere, but Genesis teaches that Earth's life-supporting atmosphere was created before the plants on day 2.
Evolutionary theory also claims that fish evolved long before the first fruit tree, whereas Genesis reveals that God created the fruit trees on day 3 and the fish on day 5. Evolution also teaches that man has been carnivorous, or at least omnivorous, from the beginning. God, however, did not sanction meat eating until after the great flood (compare Gen.1:29 with 9:3).
There are compelling Scriptural reasons why we must interpret the six days of Creation as literal twenty-four hour days. The Hebrew word yom is translated "day" in Genesis chapter one. All of the uses of yom elsewhere in God's Word mean a literal twenty-four hour day when prefixed by a numeral adjective as it is in the first chapter of Genesis. Yom without a numeral adjective infrequently means a distinct period of time such as in Isaiah 17:7: "In that day man will have regard for his Maker, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel." However, yom is prefixed by a numeral adjective here, and the repeated reference to "evening and morning" after each of the creation days makes it all the more clear that these are to be understood as literal days, not ages. I can conceive of no way that God could have made it any more obvious that He was describing normal twenty-four hour days. The phrase "evening and morning" is repeated after every single "day" in Genesis 1.
The most compelling reason for accepting the days of creation as six twenty-four hour days comes not from Genesis but
from Exodus. Here, we learn that God created in six literal days for a specific purpose. God worked six days to provide an example for man to follow. The Bible says:
[i:877d85181e]"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."[/i:877d85181e] (Ex.20:9-11)
The Hebrew word yamin which above is translated "days" is used some 700 times in the Bible and has never even once meant anything other than literal days. Yamin is the word used above in both verse 9 which refers to the
literal days that man "shall labor" and in verse 11 which refers to the six literal days of God's act of creation. That God created in six yamin, in six literal days, is indisputable here. The above passage was written in tablets of stone directly by God Himself (Ex.24:12, Ex.31:17-18, Deut.9:10). God was indeed mindful of man from the very beginning. The whole reason for God creating in six literal days was to provide an example to man as revealed to us in the Ten Commandments.
Every measurement we have for the passage of time is regulated by some natural cycle or some division thereof except for the week, which has no rational explanation outside of Scripture. The day which we divide into hours, minutes, and seconds is governed by the earth's rotation. The months are governed by the orbit of the moon around the earth. The year is governed by the orbit of the earth around the sun, and its seasons are governed by the tilt of the earth's axis as it makes its orbit around the sun. The week is governed by nothing in all creation but by the Creator alone. Inexplicably to secular anthropologists, the seven day week is universal among all human calendars. Uniquely, the week was given to us as an example to follow by God Himself, and it points as both a sign and a reminder to His sovereign act of creation. The Ten Commandments were spoken by the voice of God and written in stone by the finger of God. Scripture does not get any more inspired than that! Thus the "days" of
creation must be taken literally. To do otherwise is to blaspheme God by calling Him a liar and to mock rather than honor the Sabbath.
When it comes to the six literal days of creation, God left even the greatest skeptic among us with very little choice. For we know that He Himself said it by His own voice, and we know that it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2, Heb.6:18). The big question that Adam and Eve were asked was, "Did God really say . . .?" After they questioned His word, they fell. That seductive serpent the devil still asks, "Has God really said?" Did God
really say "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them"? While today's liberal theologians answer in the negative, I join the chorus of orthodox Christian believers who emphatically answers in the positive. How one answers determines not only one's view of holy Scripture but also one's relationship to the God of holy Scripture.
[/quote:877d85181e]
That pretty much sums it up!
Phillip :saint2:
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
An excellent summary Pastor Way! EJ Youngs book on Genesis 1 is also good too.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
twogunfighter
Puritan Board Freshman
This one is too easy. #1 is the only logical answer. All others just require too much twisting.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Ditto. Six natural days.
I wasn't aware that both the Hodges' and Warfield caved on this point. I recently discovered that James M. Boice caved as well. Sad. The denial of creation in six natural days is a slippery slope down to many other areas of unbelief. Take female pastors, for instance. I'd be surprised to find any "churches" with women elders who did not also deny the six day creation account. A lot of apostasy begins there.
In Christ, dC
I wasn't aware that both the Hodges' and Warfield caved on this point. I recently discovered that James M. Boice caved as well. Sad. The denial of creation in six natural days is a slippery slope down to many other areas of unbelief. Take female pastors, for instance. I'd be surprised to find any "churches" with women elders who did not also deny the six day creation account. A lot of apostasy begins there.
In Christ, dC
This is very interesting to me. It kind of surprised me (pleasantly) to see that the overwhelming majority of members here take a natural day view.
I'm curious, would either person who took a different view car to explain why?
I'm curious, would either person who took a different view car to explain why?
Have you guys hear of Starlight and Time by Dr Humphrey?
I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too.
I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:fa6d3cc166][i:fa6d3cc166]Originally posted by Craig[/i:fa6d3cc166]
Have you guys hear of Starlight and Time by Dr Humphrey?
I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too. [/quote:fa6d3cc166]
I have found Ken Ham and his collegues in the Creation Research Institute to be very helpful. They do approach things from a more scientific approach, but always with the intent to make sense of the evidence in light of the biblical record, which I think they do a remarkable job at doing. And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry.
Have you guys hear of Starlight and Time by Dr Humphrey?
I read the book a couple of years ago...he's part of the answers in Genesis crowd that includes Ken Ham...do you think he/they are a good resource for supporting a 6 natural days of creation cosmology? The book went way above my knowledge of physics...but it somehow made sense, too. [/quote:fa6d3cc166]
I have found Ken Ham and his collegues in the Creation Research Institute to be very helpful. They do approach things from a more scientific approach, but always with the intent to make sense of the evidence in light of the biblical record, which I think they do a remarkable job at doing. And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry.
[quote:dba396ce4f]
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:dba396ce4f]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I "need" scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture.
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:dba396ce4f]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I "need" scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:153e02815b][i:153e02815b]Originally posted by Craig[/i:153e02815b]
[quote:153e02815b]
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:153e02815b]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I "need" scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture. [/quote:153e02815b]
I liked that article too
I hope they can get some more work done on that aspect of science. In my mind astronomy is the only "hole" left in the creation side of the debate. The evidence we use is the same as the evolutionists. But how to best interpret it in light of the biblical record, that is the challenge.
[quote:153e02815b]
And their technical articles are great, especially if you really like getting into the nitty gritty physics and chemistry
[/quote:153e02815b]
I know what you mean. I basically let my jaw drop when I read Starlight and Time. I don't really feel I "need" scienctific explanations to defend my belief, but it definitely has strenghtened my faith in the veracity of Scripture. [/quote:153e02815b]
I liked that article too
I hope they can get some more work done on that aspect of science. In my mind astronomy is the only "hole" left in the creation side of the debate. The evidence we use is the same as the evolutionists. But how to best interpret it in light of the biblical record, that is the challenge.
knight4christ8
Puritan Board Freshman
I hold to a literal 7 days. But just out of curiosity is there some texts that you can suggest on the following matter: Adam was created prior to Eve. Adam also, to my understanding, named all of the creation in the same day that he and Eve were created. Is this possible based upon the knowledge that we have of Adam's capabilities. Or am I even remembering and understanding these accounts? :question:
Thanks,
Knight
Thanks,
Knight
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
hmmmmm...
I have submitted my mind to 6 literal days...very reluctantly, though...
I was an ardent follower of, shudder, Hugh Ross. I went from an Old earther (when I first got saved...I didn't even have a problem with Genisis from a Long Creation point of view...) to a rabid young earther (mid Christianity) to discovering and adhearing to Hugh Ross who seemed to destroy ALL of the Young earth arguments while purporting to hold to an "evalgelical" literal interpretation...I now have submitted my brain to the tennents of the WCF and the 6 literal days.
I have submitted my rather scientific brain because of some of the arguments and warnings I have heard from Reformed Theologens...but in doing so, I still have the occational question break through my wall of subjection and dog me in the middle of the night. Hugh Ross showed how all of the arguments for a young earth are founded on junk science and were a joke to the scientific comunity. He showed that one could hold to a literal Genisis acount and still hold to a "several billion year old" universe. His arguments convinced me and I saw very clearly that the young earthers were making many errors in their interpretations of both science and the bible...
That being said, I have taken the hugh ross stuff and placed it in submission to men who are better expositor than I. Though men of God's interpretaions are not equal to sola scriptura, I deem their study of Hebrew better than mine...their arguments better than mine and I cast my lot in with them in submission to wiser men than I.
Debates where scientists volley equations back and forth are not for me to enter in on. Debates where certain Hebrew words are qualified by numerals in front etc. are not for me, but to watch and wonder and place my hand over my mouth. hopefully I can appear wise by keeping out of the debate. I do choose though, to side with the views in this room and with the warnings given me of the ramifications of interpreting the days in Genisis as long periods of time.
Mess with Forensic Justification and I'll bite yer head off...
Love in Christ,
David Stair
PS:Arminians love Creation Science because they think that men can be argued into the kingdom of God...Reformers focused on the Guilt of sinners before a Holy God. Athiest Scientists will not be won over by equations, but by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Proof of the Bible's infalibility will come AFTER conversion...not before it!! It is a trap to focus too much time and energy on Physics...I guess I'm more interested in the Physics of the Soul before God (apologies to any Phyisisists reading this...)
PPSS I take this issue seriously becasue my dad is a Forensic Anthropologist who specialises in the study of OLD graves. I tried to get him on carbon dating as a Young Earther and he slaughtered me making me look like a fool. If us "laymen" try attacking a scientists views on Carbon Dating ,Speed of light or age of stars we will look like fools. Tread very carefully and realize there is nothing crueler than a scientist scorned by some "Young earth creationist" trying to mess with Physics to prove that the earth is under 7 thousand years old. Unless you're Ken Ham, Stick to the law of God and the fact that God created the stary host and has made a time of judgment when He will burn the elements with fervent heat...Preach Christ and Him Crucified...no Physics in that...only hope!!!! :thumbup:
I have submitted my mind to 6 literal days...very reluctantly, though...
I was an ardent follower of, shudder, Hugh Ross. I went from an Old earther (when I first got saved...I didn't even have a problem with Genisis from a Long Creation point of view...) to a rabid young earther (mid Christianity) to discovering and adhearing to Hugh Ross who seemed to destroy ALL of the Young earth arguments while purporting to hold to an "evalgelical" literal interpretation...I now have submitted my brain to the tennents of the WCF and the 6 literal days.
I have submitted my rather scientific brain because of some of the arguments and warnings I have heard from Reformed Theologens...but in doing so, I still have the occational question break through my wall of subjection and dog me in the middle of the night. Hugh Ross showed how all of the arguments for a young earth are founded on junk science and were a joke to the scientific comunity. He showed that one could hold to a literal Genisis acount and still hold to a "several billion year old" universe. His arguments convinced me and I saw very clearly that the young earthers were making many errors in their interpretations of both science and the bible...
That being said, I have taken the hugh ross stuff and placed it in submission to men who are better expositor than I. Though men of God's interpretaions are not equal to sola scriptura, I deem their study of Hebrew better than mine...their arguments better than mine and I cast my lot in with them in submission to wiser men than I.
Debates where scientists volley equations back and forth are not for me to enter in on. Debates where certain Hebrew words are qualified by numerals in front etc. are not for me, but to watch and wonder and place my hand over my mouth. hopefully I can appear wise by keeping out of the debate. I do choose though, to side with the views in this room and with the warnings given me of the ramifications of interpreting the days in Genisis as long periods of time.
Mess with Forensic Justification and I'll bite yer head off...
Love in Christ,
David Stair
PS:Arminians love Creation Science because they think that men can be argued into the kingdom of God...Reformers focused on the Guilt of sinners before a Holy God. Athiest Scientists will not be won over by equations, but by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Proof of the Bible's infalibility will come AFTER conversion...not before it!! It is a trap to focus too much time and energy on Physics...I guess I'm more interested in the Physics of the Soul before God (apologies to any Phyisisists reading this...)
PPSS I take this issue seriously becasue my dad is a Forensic Anthropologist who specialises in the study of OLD graves. I tried to get him on carbon dating as a Young Earther and he slaughtered me making me look like a fool. If us "laymen" try attacking a scientists views on Carbon Dating ,Speed of light or age of stars we will look like fools. Tread very carefully and realize there is nothing crueler than a scientist scorned by some "Young earth creationist" trying to mess with Physics to prove that the earth is under 7 thousand years old. Unless you're Ken Ham, Stick to the law of God and the fact that God created the stary host and has made a time of judgment when He will burn the elements with fervent heat...Preach Christ and Him Crucified...no Physics in that...only hope!!!! :thumbup:
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Dave,
I'm curious about the views of those who hold to the several billion year old universe theory. I assume that they believe in evolution, with God guiding the process along the way. What I'm curious about is what they teach about Adam?
I applaud those who can challenge the ideas of the evolutionary scientists. I agree that challenging them about scientific ideas is best left to those who are better trained in the sciences.
A friend (Kurt Wise) of mine, who use to attend the same church as me, is a paleontologist. One thing I respect about him is his intellectual honesty with regards to the creation/evolution debate - he's just as critical of many of the creation science ideas that are put forward as he is of evolutionary thought. As I think of his reasoning abilities in the sciences and look at the battles he's involved in, I'm very comfortable letting people like him fight those battles. I think God has others for me to get involved in.
Bob
I'm curious about the views of those who hold to the several billion year old universe theory. I assume that they believe in evolution, with God guiding the process along the way. What I'm curious about is what they teach about Adam?
I applaud those who can challenge the ideas of the evolutionary scientists. I agree that challenging them about scientific ideas is best left to those who are better trained in the sciences.
A friend (Kurt Wise) of mine, who use to attend the same church as me, is a paleontologist. One thing I respect about him is his intellectual honesty with regards to the creation/evolution debate - he's just as critical of many of the creation science ideas that are put forward as he is of evolutionary thought. As I think of his reasoning abilities in the sciences and look at the battles he's involved in, I'm very comfortable letting people like him fight those battles. I think God has others for me to get involved in.
Bob
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that?
knight4christ8
Puritan Board Freshman
My only reply to that LuvrofthWord is that your belief seems to imply limit to God. I hope that I do not offend you, but why else would you believe this way. God could create what He created in any period of time and there is no reason that God would have taken longer. ? ? ?
Knightuzzled:
Knight
uzzled:
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
whether billions of years is enough time...
One of the points that Hugh Ross makes which I still find quite compelling is that (Macro)evolution is still quite imposible even with a 15 billion year old universe.
(Macro)Evolution is mathmatically impossible...it goes against all of Physics and goes against the laws of the universe 15 billion years or not!!! The thing that Hugh Ross is trying to point out is that Evolution is not possible no matter what lenghth of time you hold for the age of the universe. A 4 billion year old world is not much longer than 7000 years...in terms of Mathmatically speaking...of the chances of life beginning or the big bang happening compared to the length of time needed to have the Universe just happen. What I'm saying, and I've said too much, is that the chances of the universe happening the way "Evolutionist" Scientists say is something so astronomically imposible that it boggles the mind.
Hugh Ross still advocates Adam and Eve and the fall. He believes that there was "death" in the sence that animals bruised and chewed grass...biologically speaking...for food to be eaten death must occur...if an animal scratches itself or has fur, dead cells are involved. His point is that the Fall of man was Spiritual death before God...death occured where as Savior is needed. The other death where cells die as part of a natural process (and is a good and nessasary thing for enjoyment of life), Hugh Ross says, MUST have occured. I've heard Hugh misquoted that he advocated death occured before the fall, but in context this is true, but he being taken out of context, is made to say something he does not belive. ( I hold no view on this as I am not a scientist)
His view is that there were hominid like creatures before the fall of Adam who were apes and that God created species after their "kind"...no evolution except "micro" and that about 6-7 thousand years ago God created Adam and then Eve the way Genisis literally tells it. It is quite interesting and made perfect sence to me.........but like I previously posted, I am but a stupid man and not a scientist nor a Hebrew scolar. I will leave this one, "to the Doctors..." as Luther put it.
as for the Junk science that was disproven by secular scientists...I am embarrassed by it and will witness to scientists using the guilt of man before a holy God...
Love in Christ,
David Stair
One of the points that Hugh Ross makes which I still find quite compelling is that (Macro)evolution is still quite imposible even with a 15 billion year old universe.
(Macro)Evolution is mathmatically impossible...it goes against all of Physics and goes against the laws of the universe 15 billion years or not!!! The thing that Hugh Ross is trying to point out is that Evolution is not possible no matter what lenghth of time you hold for the age of the universe. A 4 billion year old world is not much longer than 7000 years...in terms of Mathmatically speaking...of the chances of life beginning or the big bang happening compared to the length of time needed to have the Universe just happen. What I'm saying, and I've said too much, is that the chances of the universe happening the way "Evolutionist" Scientists say is something so astronomically imposible that it boggles the mind.
Hugh Ross still advocates Adam and Eve and the fall. He believes that there was "death" in the sence that animals bruised and chewed grass...biologically speaking...for food to be eaten death must occur...if an animal scratches itself or has fur, dead cells are involved. His point is that the Fall of man was Spiritual death before God...death occured where as Savior is needed. The other death where cells die as part of a natural process (and is a good and nessasary thing for enjoyment of life), Hugh Ross says, MUST have occured. I've heard Hugh misquoted that he advocated death occured before the fall, but in context this is true, but he being taken out of context, is made to say something he does not belive. ( I hold no view on this as I am not a scientist)
His view is that there were hominid like creatures before the fall of Adam who were apes and that God created species after their "kind"...no evolution except "micro" and that about 6-7 thousand years ago God created Adam and then Eve the way Genisis literally tells it. It is quite interesting and made perfect sence to me.........but like I previously posted, I am but a stupid man and not a scientist nor a Hebrew scolar. I will leave this one, "to the Doctors..." as Luther put it.
as for the Junk science that was disproven by secular scientists...I am embarrassed by it and will witness to scientists using the guilt of man before a holy God...
Love in Christ,
David Stair
[quote:8c1690de2b][i:8c1690de2b]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:8c1690de2b]
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:8c1690de2b]
Craig,
Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry.:wink1:
[b:8c1690de2b]Very[/b:8c1690de2b] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:8c1690de2b]
Craig,
Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry.
:wink1:[b:8c1690de2b]Very[/b:8c1690de2b] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:
[*:8c1690de2b]It does not allow the text to speak for itself. In every other instance in which the word [i:8c1690de2b]yom[/i:8c1690de2b] is used with a numeral, it means a normal day. This is part of the reason why the natrural day view was the unanimous (or near unanimous) view of the divines
[*:8c1690de2b]It causes great problems for Exodus 20 for the 4th commandment; which correlates the day of God's rest with the Sabbath
[/list:8c1690de2b]
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
You may correct me if I'm wrong here David, but I thought that Hugh Ross also didn't believe that Noah's Flood was a world wide flood, only a local flood. Do you have any info on that?
This is one area where I think many problems are resolved in the "dating" debates. Evolutionists all agree there was some sort of catastrophe way back, but none will admit it was Noah's Flood. Interesting I think....
Puritan Sailor
p.s. Who decides what an "old earth" looks like anyway??? How do we know what an old earth looks like if all we've seen is this Earth? Too many assumptions for me to swallow an old earth view. I think the scriptural accounts works just fine for me
This is one area where I think many problems are resolved in the "dating" debates. Evolutionists all agree there was some sort of catastrophe way back, but none will admit it was Noah's Flood. Interesting I think....
Puritan Sailor
p.s. Who decides what an "old earth" looks like anyway??? How do we know what an old earth looks like if all we've seen is this Earth? Too many assumptions for me to swallow an old earth view. I think the scriptural accounts works just fine for me
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
about Hugh Ross
This guy really irks a lot of people. Apparently Ken Ham has debated him and has been said to have won the debate, but Hugh Ross makes this same debate available on his web site claiming victory for himself.
Hugh Ross debated another fellow on James Dobson and the young earth guy came off looking like a loudmouth boob who kept interrupting Hugh Ross! It was disgusting!!
I was really into Hugh Ross untill up to 2 years ago, subscribing to his newsletter and holding his views on Astrophysics. I have found that the "young earthers" do not actually understand or explain what Hugh Ross and his teachings actually are. As a follower of his teachings I could see pretty quick when he was being misrepresented and it was FREQUENTLY!!! This made me all the more against young Earth Creationsim. I was vehemently opposed to it and was convinced that young earth creationism was error upon error of the very worst of junk science! Again and again I got into discussions with people who argued SAME junk science as if they all read the same books. They were reading the same books...the very ones that I had read as a young earther! Their position was pretty clear that those who held to any position but the Henery Morris Position were liberal or worse. It was difficult to get very far in discussions.
None of the issues that Hugh Ross brought up about the false science of "young earthers" was ever dealt with and worst of all...ALL the "young earthers" I talked with acted as if they were geophysicists and Astrophysicists, not just like me, a layman. They talked about Hebrew words for "day" as if they had spent years of study, but again, they were just like me...someone who had an interest in the subject but an absolute layman. Somewhere these people were being taught a very unchristian way of presenting their position in debate.
I find nothing more revolting than having someone try to convince me of a position that I have already held to...especially when I try to tell them that I was a ardent supporter of their position.
Since coming to Reformed Theology and the WCF, I have decided that I have been back and forth on the subject so many times that I would STOP. My experiences with the junk science and the adhominem attacks on both sides of the issue has kept me from doing anything more than deferring to the scientists and the doctors of Hebrew. I am a layman who has read a couple of books. I wish more of us could take this position...because to the ACTUAL doctors of Hebrew and the ACTUAL Astrophysicists, we look like boobs. As I have posted above, I hope none of us actually come head to head with a REAL scientist and think we can argue on his turf.
AS for the Flood... Hugh Ross believes that ALL human beings were destroyed from the earth save Noah, His wife and his Sons and their wives. His arguments are based on scripture and geophysical evidence. He says that the evidence is of a massive flood but not for a worldwide flood. He presents evedence for a local flood but not one that made the earth a ball of water. His book was compelling and again, I don't think many people read it as much as launched attacks against Hugh and those who do not hold to the "Young Earth/Henry Morris" position. I will only say that Hugh Ross seemed to me to be evangelical holding to an absolutely LITERAL position. But so does everybody in this debate...I'm sure the devil would even claim this....
Anything that is presented by those who say they represent the Author of truth should be truth. It gets pretty bad when the "Scientific evidence" for Creation Science is shoddy and easily disproved by the secular scientific community.
Love in Christ,
David Stair
This guy really irks a lot of people. Apparently Ken Ham has debated him and has been said to have won the debate, but Hugh Ross makes this same debate available on his web site claiming victory for himself.
Hugh Ross debated another fellow on James Dobson and the young earth guy came off looking like a loudmouth boob who kept interrupting Hugh Ross! It was disgusting!!
I was really into Hugh Ross untill up to 2 years ago, subscribing to his newsletter and holding his views on Astrophysics. I have found that the "young earthers" do not actually understand or explain what Hugh Ross and his teachings actually are. As a follower of his teachings I could see pretty quick when he was being misrepresented and it was FREQUENTLY!!! This made me all the more against young Earth Creationsim. I was vehemently opposed to it and was convinced that young earth creationism was error upon error of the very worst of junk science! Again and again I got into discussions with people who argued SAME junk science as if they all read the same books. They were reading the same books...the very ones that I had read as a young earther! Their position was pretty clear that those who held to any position but the Henery Morris Position were liberal or worse. It was difficult to get very far in discussions.
None of the issues that Hugh Ross brought up about the false science of "young earthers" was ever dealt with and worst of all...ALL the "young earthers" I talked with acted as if they were geophysicists and Astrophysicists, not just like me, a layman. They talked about Hebrew words for "day" as if they had spent years of study, but again, they were just like me...someone who had an interest in the subject but an absolute layman. Somewhere these people were being taught a very unchristian way of presenting their position in debate.
I find nothing more revolting than having someone try to convince me of a position that I have already held to...especially when I try to tell them that I was a ardent supporter of their position.
Since coming to Reformed Theology and the WCF, I have decided that I have been back and forth on the subject so many times that I would STOP. My experiences with the junk science and the adhominem attacks on both sides of the issue has kept me from doing anything more than deferring to the scientists and the doctors of Hebrew. I am a layman who has read a couple of books. I wish more of us could take this position...because to the ACTUAL doctors of Hebrew and the ACTUAL Astrophysicists, we look like boobs. As I have posted above, I hope none of us actually come head to head with a REAL scientist and think we can argue on his turf.
AS for the Flood... Hugh Ross believes that ALL human beings were destroyed from the earth save Noah, His wife and his Sons and their wives. His arguments are based on scripture and geophysical evidence. He says that the evidence is of a massive flood but not for a worldwide flood. He presents evedence for a local flood but not one that made the earth a ball of water. His book was compelling and again, I don't think many people read it as much as launched attacks against Hugh and those who do not hold to the "Young Earth/Henry Morris" position. I will only say that Hugh Ross seemed to me to be evangelical holding to an absolutely LITERAL position. But so does everybody in this debate...I'm sure the devil would even claim this....
Anything that is presented by those who say they represent the Author of truth should be truth. It gets pretty bad when the "Scientific evidence" for Creation Science is shoddy and easily disproved by the secular scientific community.
Love in Christ,
David Stair
[quote:4c21c9d351][i:4c21c9d351]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:4c21c9d351]
[quote:4c21c9d351][i:4c21c9d351]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:4c21c9d351]
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:4c21c9d351]
Craig,
Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry.:wink1:
[b:4c21c9d351]Very[/b:4c21c9d351] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:
[quote:4c21c9d351][i:4c21c9d351]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:4c21c9d351]
Let's say that I don't believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I affirm special creation apart from any kind of evolution. Why would anyone get so bent outta shape over that? [/quote:4c21c9d351]
Craig,
Sorry, but I have been out of town at Presbytery grilling candidates for the minitry.
:wink1:[b:4c21c9d351]Very[/b:4c21c9d351] briefly, the two main reasons why I think that the six age view is troubling are:
[*:4c21c9d351]It does not allow the text to speak for itself. In every other instance in which the word [i:4c21c9d351]yom[/i:4c21c9d351] is used with a numeral, it means a normal day. This is part of the reason why the natrural day view was the unanimous (or near unanimous) view of the divines
[*:4c21c9d351]It causes great problems for Exodus 20 for the 4th commandment; which correlates the day of God's rest with the Sabbath
[/list:4c21c9d351] [/quote:4c21c9d351]
It attacks the truthfulness of the Word of God. Why are we so surprised that the devil is asking the same old question, 'Did God really say?" He asked it in Genesis and got away with it and he is still pulling the same stunt..asking about the Book of Genesis itself, "Did God really say?"
(You know too that when Eve answered the serpent she added to God's Word!! Read the account!!Legalism reers its head...adding to the Word of God!!)
Grammatically, textually, historically, and scientifically - the 6 natural days of creation as recorded in Genesis is the only defensible position about how we got here!
You know, thinking about it, if we destroy the truthfulness of Genesis, we lose the soveriengty of God, the fall of man, original sin, the inherited sin nature, and the protoevangelian (Gen 3:15) in just the first three chapters! If we can lose the fall we lose the redemption of fallen man in Romans 5 and the gospel has been destroyed!
I would only add further, if you read the account as written, and see what was created on which day, scientifically nothing works but the natural day as an explanation of how long creation took.
In the beginning - Earth and Heavens (universe)
Day 1 - Light
Day 2 - The atmosphere (exapnse or firmament)
Day 3 - Dry Ground, Oceans gathered, Plants
Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars
Day 5 - Sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - Animals, insects, Man
Day 7 - Rest
One example that defeats the "ages" idea - imagine (and it would be vain imaginings!) plants without sunlight or insects for "ages". It is physically impossible!
Once you deviat from the text as it is written you call God a liar! There is no other road to take. God said what He meant (as He reiterated in Exodus 20) or He lied. If He "did NOT really say" then we should believe the devil, for he is right!!!
:shocked2: :saint2:
Phillip
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
pastorway...
I am familliar with the arguments from the "young earth" point of view...but as I posted above, I don't think you understand Hugh Ross's position. A good book to read is "Creation and Time" by Him. He is sincere (wrong??) but he is at least owed the respect of being represented corectly. He adresses ALL of the "Young earth" positions from Hebrew to the errors in their science. It MUST be addressed by the "young earth" position or guys like me will be left in limbo.
My position on debate is to know your opponent so well that he is able to "amen" all that you say about him. We should be able to have our opponent say, "I could not represent my position better than you have stated it back to me..."
Love in Christ,
David Stair
Limbo is a terrible place to be left for someone who loves science AND the bible
I am familliar with the arguments from the "young earth" point of view...but as I posted above, I don't think you understand Hugh Ross's position. A good book to read is "Creation and Time" by Him. He is sincere (wrong??) but he is at least owed the respect of being represented corectly. He adresses ALL of the "Young earth" positions from Hebrew to the errors in their science. It MUST be addressed by the "young earth" position or guys like me will be left in limbo.
My position on debate is to know your opponent so well that he is able to "amen" all that you say about him. We should be able to have our opponent say, "I could not represent my position better than you have stated it back to me..."
Love in Christ,
David Stair
Limbo is a terrible place to be left for someone who loves science AND the bible
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
