Days of Creation

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of my elders has a picture that is awesome. He took it somewhere in Pennsylvania, I think. When they were making a highway through a certain part of land, they had to blast through, what looks like, limestone. You can see the strata clearly, but what is awesome about it is that the strata is curved.

It begins about 35 feet up on both ends and curves downward 15 or 20 feet in the middle.

Now, if a fossil is found on the edges, it will be considered "younger" than the ones found in the middle of that strata, when it was all formed at the same time.

Cool, eh?

KC
 
Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a "test of orthodoxy", to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it.
 
[quote:980fa07833][i:980fa07833]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:980fa07833]
Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a "test of orthodoxy", to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it. [/quote:980fa07833]

Because any other view calls into question the plain reading of Scripture (i.e. Exodus 20:11). Plus, the natural reading of the Gen 1 doesn't really allow for any other view. It's a narrative, not poetry or prophecy. There no hermenuetical reason to take it any other way than 6 natural days.
Finally, we must remember the consequences of this slippery slope. If Gen 1 and 2 are just poetic expressions about special creation and didn't really happen the way it reads, then what about the rest of the narrative? Was there really a serpent who talked to Eve? That seems kinda stupid doesn't it? That must not have been a real serpent, it was a poetic way of expressing the appearance of evil. Oh, and since the days are not real days and the seprent not real, then were Adam and Eve actual people? Or is that just a poetic expression of how evil came into the world of men?
The same logic which denies the literal days can also denie the reliability of the rest of the first 3 chapters in Genesis, thus destroying the very foundation of the gospel. Obviously you haven't gone that far, but I have yet to see a Framework or any other type of advocate adequately address the consequences of his views. Never forget also that the whole reason Kline devised his Framework theory was to "free science from the constraints of Scripture."

:wr50:
Patrick
 
A.W. Pink also bought into the Gap Theory:

[quote:d0310f4638]
We read in verse 2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus: "And the earth had become a desolate ruin, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In "the beginning" the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2. [i:d0310f4638][b:d0310f4638]Between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some awful catastrophe had occurred-possibly the fall of Satan--and, as the consequence, the earth had been blasted and blighted, and had become a "desolate ruin," lying beneath a pall of "darkness."[/b:d0310f4638][/i:d0310f4638]

Sovereignty of God, Ch.4
[/quote:d0310f4638]


Concerning death before the Fall, here is an interesting question. Is not life on the New Earth going to be a restoration of creation to the way it was before the corruption of sin?

Will there be predation then? No.
Will there be disease? No.
Will there be suffering? No.
Will animals eat plants? Yes.
Will people die? No.
Well, what if I fall off a cliff on the new earth? Are you saying that I will somehow magically not be injured? I don't believe it.

You see, many of the same arguments levied against no physical death before sin can also be aimed at no physical death [u:d0310f4638]AFTER[/u:d0310f4638] sin. We are living in a time of sin. A sin-cursed, death-ruled world is all we have ever known. I can't imagine an existence without the effects of sin and death any more than I can imagine and existence without time, because time is all I have ever known too. Yet, God exists outside of time. He created time. In the same way, this world originally existed without sin and death, and will one day exist again without sin and death.

The death refered to cannot simply be a spiritual death. There were obviously physical effects as well. Thorns, disease, pain, predation, and unless you think these are good things, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, meteor impacts, harmful solar radiation, etc. etc. etc. Adam and Eve were also ejected from the garden to prevent their access to the Tree of Life. If they had eaten of it, they would have lived forever. (Gen 3:22) But how could they live forever? Didn't their skin cells die? What if they ate of the Tree of Life and then fell off a cliff? The arguments for the constancy of physical death don't hold up here any better than they hold up pre-Fall or in the New Earth.
The death refered to obviously does not mean simply chemical decomposition. If there was no chemical breakdown before sin, Adam would not have been able to digest food. Nor can you equate the death of an animal with the death of a skin cell. There is an obvious distinction between "life" that was alive (animals) and "life" that was "for food" (Gen 1:29-30)


A thought for TwoGunFighter: How does a 4,000,000 year old dinosaur appear different than a 4,000 year old one?

David: Have a look at Starlight and Time by Humphreys as a possible explanation of how stars really can be actual history without altering the speed of light or the light being "deceptively" created in transit. I agree with you whole-heartedly that logical argumentation will never save anyone, but can it not be a tool to support the authenticity of the scripture and remove arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God? We apologetically defend the manuscripts and the canon, why not Creation, the Flood, Bable, the Exodus, the Cross, the Resurrection? Surely, though, we should be focused on preaching the Gospel, not on proving the Gospel. There comes a point when we can do no more.
Thanks for the information from a actual Ross supporter. I hope you don't feel alienated or ganged up on.

Tons more I could say, but no time to say it.
 
Dex,

Only one question. If someone dies in glory (that is when "after sin" is) what happens to him?

And how would that square with Hebrews 9:27?

[quote:e7b9661263]
And as it is appointed for men to [b:e7b9661263]die once[/b:e7b9661263], but after this the judgment
[/quote:e7b9661263]
 
Craig:

[quote:0e6ecbd876][i:0e6ecbd876]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:0e6ecbd876]
Getting back specifically to the days of creation, I am curious as to why any view other than the literal 24 hour day view is considered dangerous. It hasn't been until recently, within the last 20 years, that the 24 hour day view has been made a "test of orthodoxy", to speak in exagerated terms. I am studying the different views off and on right now, and I am looking at all of them with an open mind, particularly the Framework Hypothesis since I am around Mark Futato and Bruce Waltke at RTS. I have yet to understand why people get upset about it. [/quote:0e6ecbd876]
The reason that I object to it is that the Framework Hypothesis does not come out of Scripture, but comes from outside of Scripture; and is formulated and compared so that it may fit into Scripture. The fact that it fits in is not sufficient to replace what comes out of Scripture. The Bible does not compel us to believe the Framework Hypothesis; rather the hypothesis tries to compel us to read the Bible differently. There needs to be a heap, a giant heap, a humongous heap of evidence for that, not just a hypothesis.

In fact, the Framework Hypthesis, if it is correct, may not be in the Confessional church, because it is not a doctrine derived from the infallible Word. But then there is a very real problem of what to do with doctrines, like the Ten Commandments, that utilize the six-day creation scenario.

The FH may sound very plausible to some, but I just cannot see how people can be comfortable with the Bible referring to a three day creation as a six-day occurence, no matter what the genre may be. And I cannot see how a denomination can accept the FH on a confessional basis. And I am from the OPC! :puzzled:
:wr50:
 
[quote:8b48e30332]
If someone dies in glory (that is when "after sin" is) what happens to him?

And how would that square with Hebrews 9:27?[/quote:8b48e30332]

Fred,

That is exactly my point. Perhaps I was not clear that some of those questions were rhetorical.

[quote:8b48e30332]And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
[i:8b48e30332]Heb 9:27,28[/i:8b48e30332][/quote:8b48e30332]
No Sin] -> Fall -> Sin & Death -> judgment -> [No Sin

Sin only exists between the Fall and the judgment. Death (physical and spiritual) is a result of sin. Therefore, death (physical and spiritual) only exists actively between the Fall and the judgment. That means that death is non-existent both after the judgment [b:8b48e30332]and[/b:8b48e30332] before the Fall. It doesn't make sense to say that death existed in the sinless world before the Fall, but it will not exist in the sinless world after the judgment.

From our perspective it is difficult to say what exists as a result of sin and what exists as a part of God's original creation. This is because we have only ever experienced the two together; God's perfect creation along with the damage done to it by sin. The only external perspective we have is scripture. If scripture says that death is an enemy and an intruder into God's perfect creation, then I have to believe that this world once existed without death. Also, if this world will one day be recreated and restored to its original sinless condition, then I have to believe that it will once again exist without death. Can I explain how it might functions in terms of thermodynamics? No. Do I know the exact extent to which death has affected this universe? No. However, the relationship between sin and death is pretty clear, and if sin is done away with, its consequence, death, will be as well.

[Edited on 11-26-2003 by DexCisco]
 
It is comforting to know I am in the midst of brothers who also believe the historical authory of scripture!
My vote is for a literal 6 day creation. I happen to disciple and teach worldview and biblical creation to youth at my church. As Luther said, High school can be compared to the gates of Hell. Its a battle for the mind, and Satan is always whispering "did God really say...?" I personally do not need to know how God did it, but for the sake of being prepared to defend my faith while witnessing to the lost, they often ask hard questions relating to creation. As the Answers in Genesis ministry so clearly points out, millions of years attacks Genesis 1-11, of which is the foundation of the cross. All biblical doctrines have their foundation ultimately, directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The doctrine of marriage, why we wear cloths, the reason Jesus came to die on a cross, why there is death in the world, why man has dominion over the earth... these things are dependent upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. We can't selectively choose what is or isn't literal based on how the world thinks or whether something is easy to reconcile or not.
Men such as Scofield and Chalmers have done a great disservice to the body of Christ by allowing compromise of the Historical authority of scripture. That being said, I don't believe a person is not "saved" because they hold an old earth view, but I would say by not taking a stand on this issue they have allowed the foundation of scripture to be shaken and they have added to or taken away God's word perhaps unknowingly, depending on how much influence and compromise has occurred. I am often reminded of King Saul and the examples when he doubted God's word or usurped His authority because of circumstance. I will say that folks like Dr Hugh Ross (Progressive creationist) are endanger of being handed over to a depraved mind and seared conscience, if he is not already. An example of Progressive creationist belief from Hugh Ross is that the fall of man had no effect on creation and death existed before sin entered the world. To me this is Heresy! The selective eisegesis of old earth creationist reminds me of how the RCC birthed such dogma of days old (ex. how they "justify" apostolic succession or purgatory). I know some learned men with advanced degrees of science will flame me for believing God's word is literal, but my testimony of His grace in my life can cause me to do no other. To the learned men I say the only absolute truth is God's word and this is the view you should start with to understand creation. Man cannot live by bread alone, but by the very word of God, and that includes Genesis 1-11! Amen

I hope my brief comment helps someone some where who wonders why this is an important topic to the modern day Puritan. I am always happy to share insight on this subject, but there are many excellent ministries who have websites, or books that cover basics. I say that, so as not to clog puritans mind with this highly controversial topic.

Blessings to all
Scott

:wr50:
 
Well, I think Futato and Waltke would disagree with your assessment that their view does not come from Scripture. ;) Kinda sounds like some things said in the paedo/credo debates.
 
6 days of Creation

[quote:58a3c88f83][i:58a3c88f83]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:58a3c88f83]
The six days of creation described in Genesis 1-2 are best described: [/quote:58a3c88f83]

Yes I agree although I believe there could be some time before the start of day one. I believe there could be something to the gap theory.

Blessings,
Donnie
 
The gap theory has death entering the world before sin. Historically it is merely an attempt to 'reconicle' the fossil record with scripture. The problem is that the need for reconciliation is only necessary when one interprets the geological column according to a presupposition based upon evolution. The gap theory also states that there was a pre-Adamic race (Neandrothals and such). The entire theory is based upon bad science and even worse theology.
 
[quote:b1d4feac09][i:b1d4feac09]Originally posted by New wine skin[/i:b1d4feac09]
It is comforting to know I am in the midst of brothers who also believe the historical authority of scripture!
My vote is for a literal 6 day creation. [/quote:b1d4feac09]

Honestly, this seems to imply that if you don't believe in six literal days you don't hold to the authority of scripture.

I think this is misleading, because I, although I haven't studied these things as much as I want to, honestly believe that six long periods of time is consistent with the Hebrew reading of Genesis one. However, I could be wrong in my interpretation. But from your statement above, it seems that you are saying because I hold to this *wrong* view of scripture, then I am somehow undermining the authority of scripture in a most grievous way. But if you are saying that I am doing this because I have a wrong interpretation of scripture, or because I am using a source outside of scripture to interpret scripture, doesn't everybody do that at some point or another. I mean I don't know of anybody who believes that they never do this. To say that you never do this is to say that you have an absolutely perfect understanding of scripture. I doubt that you would say that you have a perfect understanding of scripture.

If you admit to the above then you either have to say that nobody believes in the authority of scripture, or that you can hold to the authority of Scripture even if you have a wrong interpretation of what scripture says.

Another note: I honestly think, like R.C. Sproul, that sometimes science does correct the church and its interpretation of Scripture. One only has to remember the Copernican revolution and Galileo for an example of this. For years everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe and they tried to use scripture to support that. However once it was discovered that the earth wasn't the center of the universe everyone's view of scripture changed. Was this an example of the church undermining the authority of scripture, or was it an example of the church using science to interpret scripture.
 
[quote:8d62d319cd][i:8d62d319cd]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:8d62d319cd]
I honestly think, like R.C. Sproul, that sometimes science does correct the church and its interpretation of Scripture. One only has to remember the Copernican revolution and Galileo for an example of this. For years everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe and they tried to use scripture to support that. However once it was discovered that the earth wasn't the center of the universe everyone's view of scripture changed. Was this an example of the church undermining the authority of scripture, or was it an example of the church using science to interpret scripture. [/quote:8d62d319cd] The view that Galileo's battle with the Roman Church was a "classic case" of open-minded science vs. hidebound biblical interpretation is itself open to much debate. For one thing, the central issue at stake in this battle was pontifical, not biblical, authority. And furthermore, the issue Rome was contending for was the Thomistic synthesis of Greek religion and cosmology (cosmology is a fundamentaly religious concept) with biblcal religion and cosmology. The Roman church had already compromised itself by rejecting a [i:8d62d319cd]purely[/i:8d62d319cd] biblical cosmology. The underlying currents were power and influence. The big contest was between Rome's court-party scientists defending the establishment position and rival scientists like Galileo. When we compare today's battles to ones from old times, its important to see beyond superficial similarites.

ALSO (!) starting Saturday the OPC GA began looking at their committee's work on the Creation issue. So far (Monday morning), the OPC website doesn't have much info on the nature of those deliberations.
 
News Update, and comment

The following is from the OPC website, updates on the GA in progress. As of the end of the day on Saturday:[quote:fd8987d994]Questions concerning the report of the Committee on Views of Creation were addressed, and then the first recommendation of the report was moved. During the course of the afternoon, several amendments were offered; some were adopted. As of the end of the afternoon, the pending recommendation stood as follows:

That the General Assembly recommend that presbyteries should expect a ministerial candidate to articulate his view on the days of creation with a proper recognition of the hermeneutical, exegetical, and confessional considerations involved. The following kinds of questions should be used by presbyteries when examining a candidate, whatever his view of the days of creation, in order to show that his doctrine of creation is consistent with Scripture and the subordinate standards:

A. Does the candidate affirm the following and can he articulate what he understands by them:

1. creation [i:fd8987d994]ex nihilo[/i:fd8987d994]
2. the federal headship of Adam
3. the covenant of works
4. the doctrine of the Sabbath
5. the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture
6. the historicity of the creation account

B. Does the candidate understand and affirm the priority of Scripture in the relationship between special and general revelation?

C. Does the candidate understand and affirm the hermeneutical principles that are expressed in Scripture and in the subordinate standards?

D. Is the candidate able to address and refute the errors of the theory of evolution both exegetically and theologically?

E. Can the candidate articulate and affirm the covenantal structure of the plan of redemption as found in Genesis 1-3?[/quote:fd8987d994] Observations:
1) The issue was still before GA at the order of the day, Saturday evening. The issues may have already been decided for this year as I write this, but not necessarily.

2) GA needs our prayers as they tackle this issue. There are many good and godly men gathered there, prepared to take very seriously this matter. I think the majority of them believe the same things that are held by the majority on this board. But they are steering a freighter, not a waterscooter.

3) The outcome will not please everybody. No matter what it is. But I am glad that the church is unwilling to simply roll along as if these issues were not timely, or needing attention. I'm glad that [i:fd8987d994]something[/i:fd8987d994] is worthy of rejection! At least the recognition that evolution is incompatible with sound biblical exegesis is being maintained.

4) Don't expect a GA statement on the "confessional meaning" of the days of creation. As nice as this might be, the OPC is not going to (in essence) add a new page to the confession parsing its meaning. Certain ones already read what they want into the unambiguous language of the Confession. Trying to tighten the language has at least as much chance of opening loopholes as it does closing them.

5) GA advice on [b:fd8987d994]what questions to ask[/b:fd8987d994] is [i:fd8987d994]good[/i:fd8987d994] advice (if it is adopted). Don't slight it. Often men with poor views (or no view!) slip by presbyteries who never even ask the questions necessary to permit them an adequate perception of a man's position as he is compelled to articulate it. Some presbyters might even feel intimidated and not ask "embarrasing" questions of a candidate because the issue is peceived to be unnecessarily devisive. But now GA is (hopefully) acknowledging that these are good and necessary questions, [i:fd8987d994]all impacted[/i:fd8987d994] by a man's veiws on creation. Now a presbytery should have fewer excuses for turing blind eyes to the implications of a man's theological position.

6) I would like to see an [i:fd8987d994]explicit question[/i:fd8987d994] that addresses the matter of [b:fd8987d994]Death Before the Fall[/b:fd8987d994]. This matter is more than incidental to the biblical doctrine, OT and NT, of creation. The issue is realted to the Covenant of Works, to Adam's federal headship, the historicity of the creation account, etc. But I would like to see the issue stated baldly. The "fiat acts" of creation should be emphasized. Again, this issue is incidental to questioning a man's position on evolution, but not explicit.

I'll close for now.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Bruce I agree with your observations. Having watched a few examinations in presbytery I find it interesting that at least here, holding to an anological view of the days is not considered an exception to the Standards despite the obvious meaning of the phrase "in the space of six days." I guess only time and education can really fix this problem from our end.
 
Patrick:
What scares me about the Analogical view is that it have secondary effects on the Standards. It is technically within the Standards perhaps, but it opens to door to equating differing views not founded on strict Scriptural interpretation, such as the Analogical view and the Framework Hypothesis, to the regular six-day schemata. There may not be enough evidence from Scripture, according to these views, to draw the strict six-day view, but the other views force the arguments somewhat.

Dont get me wrong; I think that revelation in creation is also perspicuous. We do need to account for natural facts. But I don't see either the Analogical theory or the Framework Hypothesis arguing the necessity from nature, or even from logic, but only from possibility. And that is not the same thing as drawing conclusions from the assumptions of Scripture.
 
[quote:78fd8f3141][i:78fd8f3141]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:78fd8f3141]
Patrick:
What scares me about the Analogical view is that it have secondary effects on the Standards. It is technically within the Standards perhaps, but it opens to door to equating differing views not founded on strict Scriptural interpretation, such as the Analogical view and the Framework Hypothesis, to the regular six-day schemata. There may not be enough evidence from Scripture, according to these views, to draw the strict six-day view, but the other views force the arguments somewhat.

Dont get me wrong; I think that revelation in creation is also perspicuous. We do need to account for natural facts. But I don't see either the Analogical theory or the Framework Hypothesis arguing the necessity from nature, or even from logic, but only from possibility. And that is not the same thing as drawing conclusions from the assumptions of Scripture. [/quote:78fd8f3141]
What is even more scary to me is the fact that the historic meaning of the Confession on this point is being completely ignored and twisted to allow something which it normally would not. And this is also happening in other areas. It is a sign of decline in the OPC really. Not saying were there yet, and hopefully after this GA the presbyteries will have some more ammo to handle disciplinary and ordination exams regarding creation and other important issues i.e justification.
 
[quote:99298197cb][i:99298197cb]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:99298197cb]
The view that Galileo's battle with the Roman Church was a "classic case" of open-minded science vs. hidebound biblical interpretation is itself open to much debate. For one thing, the central issue at stake in this battle was pontifical, not biblical, authority. [/quote:99298197cb]

I was talking about the church in general. Although I will grant to you that the examples I cited are mainly in the context of Galileo's battle with the church *Authorities*, I think you missed the point of my argument. My point was that the church *as a whole* believed the earth was the center of the universe, and the church along with Rome used Bible verses to support their position, so I think my example still holds.

I dont think that to say the six *days* of creation are long periods of time is to reject the authority of Scripture, even if it is wrong.
 
Ryan:

Do you mean that the church as a whole thought the earth was the physical centre of the universe, or the spiritual centre? If I am not mistaken, the cultural understanding during most of the middle ages was that there was a confusion in the relation of the two. It was the old theological nemesis of the nature and grace relationship. In actual fact, though, the intellectual culture paid little attention to the physical reality, attributing much of its significance to spiritual allusion and teaching. Nature was allegorical for spiritual teaching.

If this is true then for them it was not so much a result of scientific speculation as it was spiritual speculation that the earth was the centre of the universe. In a sense we are going through the same thing again with Hawking's theories. He has spiritualized the entire universe again after his physics paradigms, only with another god in the centre, one that is rooted in his thought, not in reality itself. After trying to understand his two popular books, I have come to the conclusion that his concepts differ very little in over-all theory from the middle ages, where the earth is again the default centre of the universe because of its spiritual significance. Certainly the details are quite different, but doesn't, for example, the observation that everything is rushing away beg the question, "From what location?" And where else is this being observed from than from the earth? So in upholding our modern evolutionary doctrines, our scientific speculations are again more spiritual than they are scientific, it seems to me.

And this brings us full circle to where this impacts upon the church. Hence the concerns many of have for the directions our churches seek to follow. At least the Middle Ages had an excuse, in that they had little astrological knowledge compared to today. In our day we find ourselves in a different kind of Middle Ages because of the overwhelming knowledge at our fingertips, and little resource to make sense of it all. Meanwhile the churches are forming doctrinal theories based in part upon speculative and spiritually-based scientific theories. Or, at least, they are speculating in the vacuum left in the wake of the demise science's bold optimism. Either way, the church is showing itself a product of the time, rather than a prophet of revealed truth.
 
I really didn't expect my first post here to be on such a controversial topic - or to be so long. Let me first say that as Christian believers we can and must agree that every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and thus that no genuine facts discovered by science can or will contradict or disprove any of Scripture. However, I respectfully urge caution lest we as Christians (myself included) opine on matters of which we have little knowledge, and cause the false appearance of "disputes" between Scripture and science.

Anyway, my real point is that I think the poll choices may be too limited; there is another possible alternative: I'm intrigued by the possibility that the six days of creation discussed in Genesis 1 and 2 refer both to a literal six-day period (as measured by clocks from God's perspective outside of the earth/universe) AND simultaneously to a long period of time (as measured by "clocks" on earth). In other words, perhaps the six days in Genesis 1 and 2 is BOTH six 24-hour days (roughly) AND a long period of time at the same time (pun intended). Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity demonstrates that "time" is not the same for all "observers." Time is not absolute but literally can vary depending on the reference frame of the "person" observing time, including relative speed of motion, and clocks run much slower as one approaches the speed of light. That is why extremely accurate atomic clocks in space orbit fun faster than clocks that remain on earth. In short, the two clocks, though synchronized at one point, do not agree on the amount of "time" elapsed for the same events.

The point is that we should be cautious when getting in debates about how much "time" has elapsed since the creation of the universe. When we ask the question, "how old is the universe?," perhaps we should first ask: which clock (or from whose perspective!) are we using? A "clock" on the planet earth (i.e., from man's perspective)? Or some other clock from another frame of reference outside of the earth or even from outside the universe (i.e., a clock from God's perspective)? In short, if I understand special relativity correctly (and I confess that I have only a lay understanding) a clock on earth which began recording time at the creation of the universe would not record the same amount of "time" elapsed since creation as would a clock in a totally different reference frame. That is, the earth clock might read billions of years before man was created on the "sixth day," while God's heavenly "clock" recorded or observed the period as "six days." (Notably, until man was created on the sixth day, there was no reason for God to discuss time from the earth's or man's perspective.)

God may have given us a clue about this possibility in Hebrew term "yom." I know that there's a debate about whether yom is used in Scripture to refer both to 24-hr days and to ages, but I don't think there's any dispute that yom CAN have both meanings, at least in non-scriptural contexts. In any event, I'm even more intrigued by the possibility at that the very moment man was discovering evidence that, measured from clocks on earth, the universe is billions of years old (e.g., "seeing" light from very distant stars), God -- in His magnificent grace -- allowed man to discover that "time" is a much more elastic and mysterious concept than we could ever have imagined. I think it's possible that God is saying to scientists - "Don't use the fact that you know it took millions and millions of "earth clock" years for light from distant stars to reach earth to reject Scripture's description of the amount of "time" I chose to take to create the universe. You know that "time" is relative. I created and am bigger than time!"

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
Lee:
Welcome to the Puritan Board.

The problem with your idea is that it can also be used against itself. The idea of relational time is also devastating to the extended period theory. One is again forced to ask which time frame this applies to. But it also includes an interim time frame for the purposes of creation, something wholly unnecessary from a theoretical point of view, and certainly not Biblically justifiable.

Now, let me see if I can make my point here. Because God is God, He doesn't need anything. In order to create He did not need to set up an interim time frame, such a six-24hr-day clock that could coincide with eons of earth-day time. This actually creates another definition for [i:d89389b44e]yom[/i:d89389b44e], and that is neither founded on created norms nor Biblical ones; it is strictly theoretical.

However, if time is referential, as you suggest, then by what standard do we hold that the "years" prescribed by the distance of the stars' light to reach us is actual earth-day years? Why should they be? That is [b:d89389b44e]our[/b:d89389b44e] reference of time, not the light's, moving at the speed of light. What makes the imposition of our reference on the movement of light unimpeachable? Again, theory oversteps authority.

The Word is unmistakable. It does not lie, and goes beyond our paradigms. If the Word says that God made the world in six days, in reference to the creation itself, then I think that that holds priority over men's best theories.

I see a three-tier hierarchy in the ideas we have on the creation: of first importance is the revelation from God (e.g. the Bible, and the creation ); of second importance is the revelation of God in creation (the unity of truth ); and of last importance is the theoretical necessity, but it needs to proven necessary from the preceding two (good and necessary inference. ) It transgresses the rules of thought (tier three) to circumvent these with theoretical possibilities that may coincide with revelation, but for which there is no true warrant or evidence. That is the problem I see with the Analogical Theory and the Framework Hypothesis. We do not want to equate theory with revelation.
 
"However, if time is referential, as you suggest, then by what standard do we hold that the "years" prescribed by the distance of the stars' light to reach us is actual earth-day years? Why should they be? That is our reference of time, not the light's, moving at the speed of light. What makes the imposition of our reference on the movement of light unimpeachable? Again, theory oversteps authority."

Thank you very much for your response.

Let me make sure we're "on the same page" about the relativity of time. The point I tried (inartfully) to make is that science has demonstrated that time IS relative. And that's not just theory; it's been demonstrated with practical experiments. The reason scientists use the earth clock when measuring the amount of time it took for light to reach earth is that we have no other clock to use because we are on earth. But that doesn't mean that our clock is "Absolutely Right" in the sense that our clock reads the one "true" time elapsed for all reference frames. Other "clocks" from other reference frames (e.g., a clock near a black hole, or God's "clock" outside the boundaries of the universe) would measure different times for the same event. The point is that both would be "right" for observors from that reference frame. In fact, because of what we know about time, it is IMPOSSIBLE for measurement of time to be the same for two different reference frames. Indeed, the greater the difference between the speeds of two reference frames, the greater will be the divergence between the readings of the clocks on those two reference frames. (As a reference frame approaches the speed of light, elapsed time slows very dramatically.) In short, this simply means that time is not the absolute, one-size fits all concept that we innately believe from observation in our reference frame.

Concerning your point about theory and authority, I don't see anything in Genesis or other Scripture that tells us one way or the other about whether time is "Absolute" across all reference frames. God tells us that He created the earth in six days. I believe that firmly. But He doesn't tell us what clock He used to measure the six days. Not surprisingly, ego-centric man assumes that it has to be the earth clock.

I'm not saying that I'm definitely right about this, though I think we certainly should approach discussions concerning time with a great sense of humility, awe, and trepidation. God has demonstrated to scientists that His creation is much more complex and surprising than could be imagined not too long ago. I am concerned that most Christians who have never even heard about scientific discoveries concerning time dilation sound like "flat-earthers" to scientists and it's frankly not a good witness. And, unless someone can show me from Scripture that scientific discoveries concerning the relativity of time are in error, it's unnecessary.

BTW -- contrary to the assumption of many Christians, discoveries in physics in the past 100+ years have actually caused a "crisis of faith" among non-believing physicists. Until that period, scientists generally believed that the universe is infinite (i.e., has always been in existence). The implications of discoveries concerning time, space, and light have demonstrated that, just as God says in Genesis, the universe had a sudden and very dramatic beginning point at creation, which of course implies a Creator. One result has been that there are more believing physicists than in many other scientific disciplines, though some physicists desparately are still hoping to demonstrate that the universe had no beginning (without any success of course!) (E.g., some have hoped to show that the universe forever has expanded and contracted and the current universe is just in an expansion phase; this has been widely rejected because it's been demonstrated mathematically not to be possible.)

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
Lee:

In another thread, a while back, I showed my ignorance concerning modern scientific theories. I just don't understand them for all the effort I've put into trying. Maybe it's because I concentrated on the Hawking constructs. But for all that, there are two basic things that spring out in my way of thinking: one, that so-called scientists, who are actually theorists, can see amazing things, things that even the most detailed microscope or telescope cannot expose, and yet they do not see the most basic and obvious detail of all, that God exists. (This is also pejorative, I admit, for not all scientist are the same. But I refer to generally accepted theories based on modern science, such as the idea of the relevance of time. ) For every detail has that attribute, visible to the naked eye. So I question the objectivity of these scientific theories. It doesn't mean that I automatically think they are wrong, but I do think that they have to be proven to someone who knows and sees God. I don't want them to overwhelm us with hordes of followers who believe, for that doesn't convince; I don't want them to do all kinds of acrobatics to show consistency, for that doesn't convince either. Nor am I suggesting that lack of convincing power is automatic error. All I suggest is that the Word cannot be wrong.

The six-day, 24-hour scenario is not ego-centric. It is the plain rendering of Scripture. The charge of ego-centricity is merely pejorative, nothing more. The normal reading of Scripture, consistent with itself, for faith and not for confusion, allows for some room for discussion, but not for any undermining of the basic precepts. That has already been discussed in this thread. The six-day scenario cannot be stretched to fit theories without indirect ramifications upon other Scriptural precepts. It is God who ties the days of creation to the regular weekdays in His decalogue, not man. That needs to taken into account, more than any "proven" theory that man has come up with.

And that brings me to my second concern. I have seen the evidences in the Hawking books for the relevance of time. And I am confused about it. He has a scenario about twins being subjected to two different time frames. When they meet again one is old and the other still young. He calls this proof of separate time frames. But there they are, at the same time again, together. For all that they have gone through, one is not standing beside the other in a different decade, or a different day, or even a different minute. They are again, by necessity, together.

Now put that together with the notion that for the light of, say, Alpha Centauri to reach us takes one thousand seven hundred years. (I'm just going by a misty memory here, I may be wrong. ) But whose time are we talking about? We can't just assume that, if AC is 1700 light years away, and let's say it is the furthest star we can see, that the universe is at least 1700 years old. That is going by our time frame reference, and we have just proven that even in the life-time of one set of twins the time can make such a difference. How do we know what frame-reference to use for light? Yet the speed of light is deemed the true constant. But speed involves time and distance, the very things that our sciences have precluded in their theories, not God.

I know this sounds confusing, but they are obstacles that I just can't get over, for all that I try. God's Word is inviolable, but so is His revelation of Himself in creation. That cannot be dislodged from my thinking. The relevance ideas must be turned onto the scientific theories themselves, not on the truths God has revealed. Especially if these relevance theories are rght.

So you can see how, when we speak of ego-centric theory, it is actually "objective" science that suffers, not theology. And I am very leery of pasting fallible human theories upon Scripture for interpretive significance, because that violates basic rules of interpretation. It is just that that I see as problematic with modern theories coming from Christians who seem to want some other explanation than the normal six-day view, for I do not yet see a necessity for it. It is just possibility thinking so far, and should be kept there unless there is some real evidence for it.
 
"The charge of ego-centricity is merely pejorative, nothing more. "

I apologize for using that phrase, especially without making myself clear. (I certainly wasn't referring to you by that statement; your posts reflect a Christ-like attitude on the issue and a real attempt to grapple with admittedly difficult concepts and issues.) Putting aside sin-based reasons why each of us might assume the clock is measured from man's perspective, I should have just said that we naturally assume a day = a day. Because man has always experienced time only in this reference frame, man natureally assumed that time is absolute and measured the same everywhere and in all contexts. It wasn't until God allowed man to discover things about electromagnetism, the nature of light, etc. that it became clear to those who studied these matters that time is NOT an absolute concept independent of the universe.

In any event, I'm not at all sure that we're understanding each other. I DO believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate. I DO believe that God created everything in six days, though I've tried to explain why that can be absolutely 100% true, while at the same time clocks on earth might measure the same events as taking a longer period of time. If anyone can demonstrate to me that Scripture precludes the scientific discoveries regarding time dilation, I'll bow to Scripture. Until then, however, I'll try gently to persuade Christians at least to try as hard as possible to understand science before asserting boldly that it is wrong or that it contradicts Scripture. (BTW, I also recognize that I may be wrong about the science and would be more than happy to be corrected by someone with a greater understanding.)

You are correct that many scientists contemptuously dismiss Scripture without any real thought. Unfortunately, I believe that part of the reason they do so is that so many Christians are dismissive of genuine scientific discoveries, while demonstrating they don't understand the issues at all. This leads many to assume a greater conflict between Scripture and science than really exists. Of course, the issue is very much complicated because scientists sometimes are wrong (particularly evolutionary biologists).

Finally, I assure you that many scientists are believers; I know some of them, and have heard a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry give his testimony. It's fair to say that these believing scientists grieve over the poor witness many Christians make when they create the impression that it is not possible both to understand and accept genuine scientific discoveries and to believe in the integrity of Scripture. They know better.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion, but I also don't want to create any dissension or cause any problems.

EDIT: I should add that I just noted my signature includes my home church and thus want to make clear that I speak for myself only and do not speak on behalf of anyone else. I am trying hard to grapple with these issues as honestly,m sincerely, and humbly as I can.

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
Lee:

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was using your posts to make my points concerning the original issue of this thread, namely the different theories being raised as alternative to the six-day theory.

There is more to it than science. I would say the same in the sphere of apologetics, that there is more to it than logical inference. I'm not trying to minimize them, for I hold them both in reference to God's revelation of Himself, and so are also inviolable in that context.

My concern is what you alluded to in your last post about, "unless someone can prove to me from Scripture...." You, and many Christian scientists, have distanced youselves from taking science as the ultimate authority, but many have not. When science and Scripture are placed side by side, they witness the same truth. But some see contradiction, and prefer science to Scripture, because, they say, Scripture is interpretational, after all. I've seen people deny the plain meaning of Scripture based on that principle. Too many things have been let in the back door by way of good intentions, and seeming certainty.

In my view, we are decades, maybe centuries away from conclusive enough assertions which justify the Framework Hypothesis or the Analogical Theory. It is much too soon to be suggesting equal status to the six-day/24hr-day understanding that God has suggested in His decalogue. Modern science has not necessitated an unseating of the Confession's assertion.

I would think that, as it is unfair to paint all scientists as ungodly and undermining of Scripture, so also it is unfair to paint all six-day advocates as unscientific, or flat-earth-ers. That is just not the case. There are some of us who have real concerns with the unity of real science and real theology. They just do not disagree, and God does not misstate Himself.

Again, Lee, I'm not saying that you are asserting these things. I'm arguing against what I see as a misplaced trust. I don't doubt yours. I believe in science, and I believe in logic. But I believe that I can trust my faculties in these disciplines only when I hold God's Word as supreme, and I bury my life in His presence.
 
[quote:23fbf4040a]My concern is what you alluded to in your last post about, 'unless someone can prove to me from Scripture....' You, and many Christian scientists, have distanced youselves from taking science as the ultimate authority, but many have not.
[/quote:23fbf4040a]


John,

It's been a very pleasant discussion with you.

I don't disagree that many refuse to take Scripture seriously and thus too readily dismiss it because, they wrongly assert, it is too subjective. But as someone who believes completely in the utter integrity and supremacy of Scripture, I don't know how else to approach this issue than how I have. The unavoidable fact is that, although Scripture is not one bit inconsistent with any scientific truth, it does not expressly address all scientific truth. If scientists claim to have learned something that is beyond doubt contrary to Scripture, I'll certainly stick with Scripture. But if scientists discover something, can demonstrate its truth in practical experiments, and nothing in Scripture is genuinely contrary to it, I see no sense in rejecting it. Of course, the rub there is whether "Scripture is genuinely contrary to it." That's why I invited someone to show me that Scripture demands that relativity is wrong, or even if not that the six days must be mean six calendar days as judged from all clocks in all reference frames. On what other basis should I judge?

I first started thinking about this issue in college when I became a believer in a sudden and dramatic conversion (I was a convinced atheist who made fun of Christians). After God in His grace regenerated me, I knew that every Word of His is true and entirely consistent with any genuine scientific discovery. I remain convinced of that to this day.

Thanks!

Lee
 
[quote:d8949191ab][i:d8949191ab]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:d8949191ab]
Ryan:

Do you mean that the church as a whole thought the earth was the physical centre of the universe, or the spiritual centre? If I am not mistaken, the cultural understanding during most of the middle ages was that there was a confusion in the relation of the two.[/quote:d8949191ab]

I believe that the earth is the spiritual center of the universe along with those in the middle ages. However, although this might have been part of what the church believed in the middle ages, they also meant that the earth was the physical center of the universe. From what I remember Galileo himself thought thought that the earth was the physical center of the universe until he found astronomical evidence to the contrary. So I believe that I am justified in making that situation atmost analogous, or atleast similar to our current conversation. Sometimes science is used to correct the churches interpretation of scripture.


[quote:d8949191ab]If this is true then for them it was not so much a result of scientific speculation as it was spiritual speculation that the earth was the centre of the universe. In a sense we are going through the same thing again with Hawking's theories. He has spiritualized the entire universe again after his physics paradigms, only with another god in the centre, one that is rooted in his thought, not in reality itself. [/quote:d8949191ab]

I am not a Proponent of Hawking's Theories or Theoroms, so I would agree with you. He uses imaginary numbers in his theoroms to avoid the conclusion that the universe has a beginning. He does this to avoid the logical conclusion that if the universe has a beginning it must have a beginner.

[quote:d8949191ab]...doesn't, for example, the observation that everything is rushing away beg the question, "From what location?" And where else is this being observed from than from the earth? So in upholding our modern evolutionary doctrines, our scientific speculations are again more spiritual than they are scientific, it seems to me.[/quote:d8949191ab]

Im not sure what you mean by *evolutionary* doctrines. This is an extremely vague term. If you are refering to the big bang theory as an evolutionary doctrine I think that this is a wrong description of the theory, but in any case, to say that the big bang theory is more spiritual than scientific simply becasue we get all of our data of the universe while observing the universe on earth is in no way analogous to the middle agers belief in the earth as being the spiritual center of the universe.


All of the above has gotten way off of the track. My original post had to with the charge that those who believe in progressive creation don't believe in the authority of Scripture. I think that this is absurd. While there could be progressive creationists who don't believe in the authority or innerrancy of the Bible, this does not mean that these are necessary for you to be a progressive creationist. I affirm that you can both be a progressive creationist and also believe in the athority and innerrancy of Scripture. What is more, i don't see this as even being a controversial manner. I think that it was originally proposed by the prominent creationists to serve as a scare tactic so that christians would be ardentally against anything that the creationists labelled as the foundation of atheism. Now I am just blabbering, I will stop now.:blah1:
 
Ryan:
Are you referring to the statement,[quote:a2e689ef8f]I dont think that to say the six *days* of creation are long periods of time is to reject the authority of Scripture, even if it is wrong. [/quote:a2e689ef8f]?

I would think that the onus is on the progressive creationists to show that God definitely did not mean "extended periods" in the Ten Commandments. It is He, not man's interpretation, that combines the two, the creation days and the days of the week. We can't just assume that God only meant it allegorically. We have to hold out for either one if we can't tell from the text. But at the same time, we can't just raise up theories based upon speculation and think that they are equal in authority to Scripture.

Remember that irrefutable scientific proof is only irrefutable until it is refuted. Not so Scripture. As someone who subscribes to the Belgic Confession, art. II, I would insist that truly founded factual information is as authoritative as Scripture, for it too is God's revelation. We do have to be very careful, though, what we call truly founded information. There is a lot of excess weight aboard what we call modern science. I tried to prove that above with the discussion on relative time, and how it impacts science more than it does theology. For it gets very little attention in our time. We still have many years of work to do in that area before we can see how it effects our theology.

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from anything. As long as we hold the Scripture in our heart, and walk with God in our heart every day, both in devotion and in prayer, then we can both be sure that He will lead us into His truth, and not allow us to wander into myths. There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings.
 
[quote:b04a6bd02d][i:b04a6bd02d]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:b04a6bd02d]


I would think that the onus is on the progressive creationists to show that God definitely did not mean "extended periods" in the Ten Commandments. It is He, not man's interpretation, that combines the two, the creation days and the days of the week. We can't just assume that God only meant it allegorically. We have to hold out for either one if we can't tell from the text. But at the same time, we can't just raise up theories based upon speculation and think that they are equal in authority to Scripture. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

The dage/age creationist does not believe in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis one. He believes the semantic domain of the hebrew words in Genesis allow yom to *literally* be translated as a long period of time. Whether the making the claim that that definition within the context of the rest of the bible,including the ten commandments, is justifiable might be dubious.[/quote]

[quote:b04a6bd02d]Remember that irrefutable scientific proof is only irrefutable until it is refuted. Not so Scripture. As someone who subscribes to the Belgic Confession, art. II, I would insist that truly founded factual information is as authoritative as Scripture, for it too is God's revelation. We do have to be very careful, though, what we call truly founded information. There is a lot of excess weight aboard what we call modern science. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

I agree with you 100% on the above


[quote:b04a6bd02d]I'm not going to try to dissuade you from anything. As long as we hold the Scripture in our heart, and walk with God in our heart every day, both in devotion and in prayer, then we can both be sure that He will lead us into His truth, and not allow us to wander into myths. There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings. [/quote:b04a6bd02d]

absolutly!!!!


My main goal for giving my :wr50::wr50: to this discussion was to correct something that you didn't bring up. Someone made a passing comment saying that he was glad that there were people here who believed in the historical authority of scripture. Comments like that are totally uncalled for. i say this not because I am an old earther, because I disagreed with this when I was a young earther, but because to say that someone doesn't believe in the authority of scripture because they might not have an accurate view of a particular topic in scripture, is to say that nobady believes in the authority of Scripture. And if then nobody believes in the authority of scripture (i'm sure everyone believes atleast one thing that is contrary to scripture) then why do you even have to bother with saying that somebody who believes contrary to you on an issue of scripture is undercutting the authority of scripture, because everyone does it.
I hope that made sense.
anyway i had a good time talking about this. :thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top