Days of Creation

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:ec194850f8]
There are many things we do not know, and we need each others' different opinions to sharpen our understandings.
[/quote:ec194850f8]

Augustine said in the Confessions 11:14:17 concerning time:

"I know what it is, provided that nobody asks me, but if I want to explain it to an enquirer, I do not know."
 
[quote:39b36583cc]
Augustine said in the Confessions 11:14:17 concerning time: "I know what it is, provided that nobody asks me, but if I want to explain it to an enquirer, I do not know."
[/quote:39b36583cc]

Yet another demonstration of Augustine's wisdom.

:pilgrim:
 
My question has always been, if we didn't have modern "science" would we believe that God created the world in six, 24 hour days?

I think the answer would be yes, we would.

What new revelation do we have to refute that fact? Does it come from exegesis of the text without the slant of science, or has our presupposition changed because of old earth theories.

My premise is that until these theories are proven, we should hold to 6X24. If not, we are allowing a theory to change our view of Scripture, where we would not have otherwise. What is the proof of this? Do we have any old earth exegesis prior to science's claims? No. we do not.

Therefore, we should remain at 6X24 until proven wrong.

KC
 
Kevin:
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon. :D

I think the concern for some, and I would agree, is that we begin to throw out the created norms in which the Word is revealed; throwing out the context and retaining the Word. Or, to put it differently, resolving a contradiction between the one revelation and the other by denying the one's authority. What is at issue is not the authority of general revelation, but rather man's conclusions which he draws from it. Man likes to jump to conclusions when he thinks the ducks are lining up. Extrapolation is man's favourite passtime.
 
[quote:7cc1c3f0a0]
Man likes to jump to conclusions when he thinks the ducks are lining up. Extrapolation is man's favourite passtime.
[/quote:7cc1c3f0a0]


[quote:7cc1c3f0a0]
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon.
[/quote:7cc1c3f0a0]

Which verse is that?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :bs2:

(I shouldn't be posting tonight; definitely not in a good mood.)
 
[quote:2d9de9b169][i:2d9de9b169]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:2d9de9b169]
Actually, I believe the days are just a bit less than 24hrs., a siderial (sp) day rather than a solar day. That is, a day measured by a distant star rather than by the position of the sun from noon to noon. :D
[/quote:2d9de9b169]
:scholar:
Uh John, there would be no difference in time when using a star or the sun. It's still one rotation of the earth with reference to a fixed point in space, sun or no sun, unless you postulate the the earth rotated at a different speed during the first 3 days.

And to the others,
What findings of science could confirm a 6x24 or analogical day theory? Science can only tell us what happens now. As soon as you speculate the past, especially events like creation, you run into the same difficulties that evolutionists have. You have no way of knowing your theory is correct because you have no way of empiricaly verifying it. This is why science has limitations to it's use. Don't get me wrong, I love science, I have pursued two detailed courses of education in science. But when science has no way of verifying it's claims, then it's nothing more than speculation. But we do have an eyewitness account of the creation in Scripture, a historical account. That is our empirical evidence for the 6x24 day. As John mentioned, it is Scripture which ties the creation account, to the 6 day week mentioned in Duet 5. And Hebrews 11:3 states, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." This is something God shows us through faith because as I stated above, there is no way for science to verify an alternate theory of origin. This makes the issue not a scientific one but hermenuetical.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
Well said, Pat

The Bible is its own interpreter. Outside info is often useful, but in the last analysis it is totally dispensible. Such info is not necessary to attain a thoroughly correct understanding of any given text, and that would be true not just "spiritually" but in every way a text speaks--historically, physically, figuratively etc. We still have rules of interpretation, but those rules (while maybe not spelled out as 'rules' in the Bible) are nevertheless congruent with the Bible. They are [i:e81152cdce]biblical.[/i:e81152cdce]

This is my big problem with contrary views to 6-day: they are not organic developments of biblical hermeneutics, but are the products of external conclusions about the world, which are then brought to the Bible with the expectation that the Bible can and ought to be made to read in such a way that these conclusions are not challenged. In other words, there is a new final authority.

Ask yourself the question honestly: would the gap/theistic evolution/framework/analogic theories or any others (which are all new hermeneutics that are subtle, sideways, full-on, and frontal type assaults on the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic) have arisen if the centuries-old exegesis had not been tossed out wholesale as "found wanting," and that without bothering to investigate if in fact there were "long standing mistakes" that could be corrected through better analysis? My judgment is no. The old exegesis was tested, and found sound as a bell, and could not be moved unless it was removed altogether.
 
I don't want to cause unnecessary dissension. However, I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is [b:233733fa9f][u:233733fa9f]no possibility[/b:233733fa9f][/u:233733fa9f] that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)? Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this? Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality? And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved? Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate?

Again, I agree wholeheartedly that if Scripture [b:233733fa9f][u:233733fa9f]in fact[/b:233733fa9f][/u:233733fa9f] is contrary to what appears to be a scientific discovery, we must bow to Scripture. But I think we should be cautious and humble before stating that our interpretation of Scripture is so certain that science MUST be wrong. Many of you will bristle at the comparison, and the analogy may not be perfect, but there were many in centuries past who believed that Scripture taught that the earth was flat and stationary, and that the Sun revolved around the earth. They were convinced that Scripture demanded the rejection of any contrary beliefs. That's what some texts seemed to imply and, after all, any contrary view offended the traditional exegesis. Today, after the scientific discoveries could no longer be denied, we not only see no such conflict, we find it hard to understand why those Christians were so convinced of their interpretation that some of them actually persecuted believing scientists who knew better.

I don't know that my exegesis is correct. I do know that my heart is convinced that Scripture is correct and thus that nothing man will ever discover about the reality of God's creation will ever be inconsistent with His word. On the contrary, I'm convinced that general revelation - though subservient to Scripture -- is not misleading and is consistent with inspired revelation. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, [u:233733fa9f]being understood through what has been made[/u:233733fa9f], so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20) That is, far from giving us a misleading picture of God, I believe that a study of His creation will reveal to us much about His staggering immensity, majesty, glory, and power. I believe that, just as there is much about God that we have never dreamed or imagined, as He graciously allows man to discover more and more about His creation (the nature of time, string theory(??), etc.), that truth will be demonstrated more and more clearly. The only proper response is and will be to fall at His feet in worship.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
[quote:d977901b80][i:d977901b80]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:d977901b80]
I don't want to cause unnecessary dissension. However, I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is [b:d977901b80][u:d977901b80]no possibility[/b:d977901b80][/u:d977901b80] that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)? Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this? Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality? And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved? Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate?
[/quote:d977901b80]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My exegesis is based upon Scripture alone. I cannot see any other way to read the 6 days as any other than what the natural reading renders it. The Scriptures simply don't lend themselves to any other interpretation, especially in light of the fact that teh other interpretations often lead to many more interpretive difficulties than a 6x24 understanding.

And there will never be any findings in science to show either way whether the world was created that way or not. You may postulate theories all you want about how the earth was created, but scientists have no way of verifiying these speculations. Scientists can verify whether or not the earth is round, or whether the earth rotates around the sun (especially since those errors were taken from primarily poetic sections of the Bible with metaphors which were not intended to be taken literally). They can tell us about time, light, relativity, and gravitational distortion all they want, and even glorify God in those discoveries, but that only tells us about the here and now. I don't care how many earth clocks there are indicating how old the earth is, because that only tells us how the world works now. We don't empirically know what the earth looked like in the beginning. We have no starting point as a reference for the "earth clocks" by which to measure. And scientists must also take into account the catastrophic changes which occured in Noah's flood. The Earth was most likely significantly changed by that event. I'm not trying to bring Scripture and true science into contradiction because that is impossible. But science has limitations, as well as problems with it's own interpretations of the data. Science can observe. That's it. We must rely on Scripture to tell us how we got here and how the earth came to be what we see today.
 
[quote:d385e1770a]I cannot see any other way to read the 6 days as any other than what the natural reading renders it. . . . . . Scientists can verify whether or not the earth is round, or whether the earth rotates around the sun (especially since those errors were taken from primarily poetic sections of the Bible with metaphors which were not intended to be taken literally). [/quote:d385e1770a]

Well, I certainly agree with your hermenuetical position regarding the limitiations and purpose of poetic sections of the Bible. My point is that apparently that position wasn't strong enough to carry the day in Copernicus' day. Many, many Christians refused to accept the truth that the earth rotates around the sun because they believed that the natural reading of the text precluded it. Now that we've been raised from birth with an acceptance of the scientific truth about the earth, and perhaps a better understanding of hermeneutics, it's easy for us to recognize that there never was a real conflict between Scripture and science on the point AND that many Christians had misinterpreted Scripture. But shouldn't that make us a bit cautious before speaking dogmatically about what I hope we all agree are difficult and non-essential issues.


[quote:d385e1770a]And there will never be any findings in science to show either way whether the world was created that way or not. You may postulate theories all you want about how the earth was created, but scientists have no way of verifiying these speculations.[/quote:d385e1770a]

This is too vague for me to respond other than to say that there certainly are limits to what scientists can discover about the physical universe.

[quote:d385e1770a]I don't care how many earth clocks there are indicating how old the earth is, because that only tells us how the world works now. We don't empirically know what the earth looked like in the beginning. We have no starting point as a reference for the "earth clocks" by which to measure. And scientists must also take into account the catastrophic changes which occured in Noah's flood. The Earth was most likely significantly changed by that event. [/quote:d385e1770a]

I have several problems with that reasoning: First, the notion that we have no starting point as a reference for the earth clocks means, I assume, that God may have created evidence that seems to suggest an old-looking universe. (E.g., starlight from millions/billions of light years away must have been striking earth immediately upon creation). I view that as hard to square with God's statement that the heavens declare His handiwork. Second, I don't understand how a physcial flood on earth could conceivably have impacted earth clocks or the measurement of light from distant galaxies. Moreover, the notion that basic principles of God's physical creation changed because of the flood (or because of any other physical reason) flies in the face of the very principles that led Christians to be among the early scientistific pioneers. It was precisely because Christians like Blaise Pascale and others knew that God is a God of order and that He is unchanging that they assumed they could profitably study His creation and developed the scientific method to allow men to do so.


[quote:d385e1770a]I'm not trying to bring Scripture and true science into contradiction because that is impossible. But science has limitations, as well as problems with it's own interpretations of the data. Science can observe. That's it. We must rely on Scripture to tell us how we got here and how the earth came to be what we see today. [/quote:d385e1770a]

I largely agree with this statement. As mentioned, there are serious limitations about what science can discover, though I don't think we can hide behind that statement. It tells us virtually nothing about whether science has in fact discovered a particular truth or not. I also agree that Scripture is supreme and that Scripture tells us without doubt that God created the heavens and earth and that he did so in "six days." It doesn't tell us much detail about that creation at all; God has chosen to leave it to man's investigation of the insights that can be gleaned from general revelation to fill in many details. I readily admit, however, that we must be very careful about evaluating scientific claims -- I'll certainly not defending the philosophically based mistakes made by evolutionary biologists!

Anyway, peace!


[Edited on 6-12-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
[quote:b2c6a69cb3][i:b2c6a69cb3]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:b2c6a69cb3]
I have several problems with that reasoning: First, the notion that we have no starting point as a reference for the earth clocks means, I assume, that God may have created evidence that seems to suggest an old-looking universe. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
So then, what does an old universe look like? Have you ever seen one before to compare? Just by making this statement you have already made an unproved assumption, something you are not supposed to do in science.

[quote:b2c6a69cb3]
(E.g., starlight from millions/billions of light years away must have been striking earth immediately upon creation). I view that as hard to square with God's statement that the heavens declare His handiwork. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
I would view that mystery as a confirmation of His handiwork :)
[quote:b2c6a69cb3]
Second, I don't understand how a physcial flood on earth could conceivably have impacted earth clocks or the measurement of light from distant galaxies. Moreover, the notion that basic principles of God's physical creation changed because of the flood (or because of any other physical reason) flies in the face of the very principles that led Christians to be among the early scientistific pioneers. [/quote:b2c6a69cb3]
I don't think that the laws of nature changed because of the Flood. I think the evidence we have to look at was completely changed or perhaps terraformed :) The earth does not look like the garden of Eden anymore but has had a complete makeover. It's entirely possible this Divine judgment upon the earth had further reaching consequences into the Universe (for instance, why does the Moon have so many craters on it if God made it good?) or at least our solar system. So whenever we look at the geologic stata or fossil records this catastrophic event must be taken into account, something which most scientists do not do. As for the "earth clocks", again we have no starting point to use as a reference. We have nothing to compare these things too. All we have is what we can observe now. It is pure speculation to ponder how old the universe or earth are by them because we must first presuppose some sort of criteria to measure them by, which we have no way of empirally verifying. The light from the stars is always an interesting challenge and one which I'm eagerly listening to for an explanation. But it is still no objection to the 6x24 days since we are not told how God put those stars there, just that He did. Perhaps he created all the stars within close proximity and then "stretched them out" across the universe so that the light emitted from them is not "a lie," you know, one of those relativity things. But because we don't have an explanation for it doesn't mean the 6x24 interpretation in invalid. We just don't have enough data to connect the dots yet. And we may never have it. The creation week was not exactly a normal occurence in history. It is a mixture of both providence and the supernatural. So if we were to try to measure things by today's scientific standards, we would not be able to account for the miraculous aspects of the creation. We only know that He took 6 days because He told us. It's a narrative text not poetic so there is really no way to get around it.
 
Patrick:
Before I catch up on reading this post, let me correct you concerning the following,
[quote:85d685ca59]Uh John, there would be no difference in time when using a star or the sun. It's still one rotation of the earth with reference to a fixed point in space, sun or no sun, unless you postulate the the earth rotated at a different speed during the first 3 days. [/quote:85d685ca59]
Not so. Because the earth orbits the sun as it spins on it's axis it takes just a little bit more than one siderial day to accomplish one solar day. The time from one noon to the next noon has to take into account the distance traveled along the orbit, whereas the time from one determined position of a star to the next time it reaches that exact same position is acutally less than 24 hrs. as measured by a solar day.

All I am doing is obviating the 24hr. solar day argument from any objection to the creation of the luminaries on the fouth day. It allows for 6 regular days of creation without the problem that the sun or stars were not there the first three days. It seems to be a stumbling block to many, especially the Analogy Theory, when in reality it's not a problem at all.

Now, I'll go back and read. It may be that someone has already said all this.
 
[quote:569479b3a8]Perhaps he created all the stars within close proximity and then "stretched them out" across the universe so that the light emitted from them is not "a lie," you know, one of those relativity things.[/quote:569479b3a8]

Well, I fail to see how stretching stars out in a period of a few thousand years so that it only appears that they are millions of light years away would be anything but misleading.


[quote:569479b3a8] But because we don't have an explanation for it doesn't mean the 6x24 interpretation in invalid.[/quote:569479b3a8]

I would concede that there are instances in which we simply have to say that we don't have an explanation for it and that in those instances we need not worry that Scripture is wrong. Of course, the question is whether this is one of those issue. As I've tried to make clear, I do believe that even though the Genesis text doesn't say expressly that the days are 24 hours, science has shown us how that could both be literally true while other (longer) measurements of the amount of elapsed time would also be accurate.

[quote:569479b3a8]We just don't have enough data to connect the dots yet. And we may never have it. [/quote:569479b3a8]

Perhaps. But find me a genuine, believing Christian physicist (and there are many) who agrees with you that we just don't have enough data make conclusions about the age of the universe as measured from earth, and I'll find it easier to agree with you.

We certainly won't change each other's minds on this issue and that's fine with me. I pray that God will keep my heart open to hear all sides of the issue and will show me the error of my thinking, if I'm wrong.

I look forward to discussing other issues with you. Because this issue is perhaps the only one in which I have any reservations about the WCF, I'm confident that we are very much in agreement on most other issues. (Although I could try to suggest I'm in complete agreement with the WCF because I, too, believe in a 6x24 creation, that wouldn't be honest because I recognize they had no idea that time is relative and thus never even considered the possibility that a day might literally equal a thousand years!) I'd much rather debate an Armininian about God's sovereignty, total depravity, monergistic regeneration, etc.!
 
OK, caught up.

I agree with Bruce for everything except the idea of the reliability of science in light of Scripture. The very rules of interpretation he speaks of are creational, scientific, and not exegetically ascertained. As Lee said, there is a consitency in truth that applies to the truths of Scripture as well as the creation. And I am a believer in the clear revelation of God in "the things created", as Lee pointed out.

I agree with Patrick's view of subjective science as well. I don't think, however, that that precludes science as normative on Scripture, and Scripture on science. It is what is in our time touted as science, when in fact it is not always necessarily so, that some would foist upon Scripture what real science would not, based upon their convictions of what science demands of them. I have already pointed out one weakness of some, who make great hay out of the fact that the luminaries were created the fourth day, to cast aspersions on the idea of 'day' for the first three days. It is not a scientifically rooted objection, as some would have it. It is, in fact, science that rescues the 24hr. (or a bit less) period day for the first three, thereby, in my view, obviating the Analogy Theory.

I too would like to add my two cents to Lee's questions:
[quote:477da0983d]I would be interested in knowing your collective responses to these questions: Are you taking the position that there is no possibility that science is correct that time is relative (e.g., that it dilates as reference frames approach the speed of light so that no two clocks in different frames would measure the same times for the same event) or that earth clocks measure the amount of time elapsed since creation as taking longer than a few thousand years (as measured by clocks on earth)?[/quote:477da0983d]
In fact, Lee, science may well be correct. It just isn't finished with the theory for it to be full enough to make an account based upon Scripture. For science has to account for two non-subjective clocks (atomic) doing two different things, but, at the same time. Do you see the third dimension there? They are relating to the time they are subject to, and they may be different, but then we have to try to make sense out of two times happening at the same time. For the two clocks are brought together for comparison, not in different relations, but again in the same relation; and one will not accurately depict that relation, though they were non-subjective clocks. You refer to a relation here and a relation there, but Genesis One and Two refer to no here or there relation in particular, but I would suppose it refers to the one in which the differing relations are brought together for comparison.

That is: the consideration that, though there may be widely varying relational times, that atomic clocks in widely ranging locations showing different times, so that no two are the same, that yet there is a consistency to the whole: the universe is not a relational chaos, but is rather a beauteous unity. For time to be consistent all through it may indeed require what you call relative time. I don't know, because I don't understand it. But the theory is not developed enough, as far as I know, for it to impact the Genesis account. It is one thing to say that time is relative, it is another to state what that means to a unified universe as a whole.

And cannot you see that the relative time notion should have a greater impact on the time science tells us it takes for starlight to reach us than it has upon the Genesis account? That light may have a relevancy quotient we are not aware of. (I don't know if I used the word 'quotient' in its right context here. I think I did, but I'm not a scientist. )

[quote:477da0983d] Are you so certain of your exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 that you would stake the integrity of Scripture on your certainty that science is wrong about this?[/quote:477da0983d]
I would. It seems that God ties the days of creation to the days of the week. I have not yet seen any science or theory that would upset that. It is true that it may be an allegorical comparison, but that is as far as we can go right now. We have no warrant to say it is allegorical. We must take Scripture to say what it says in normal syntax; we may not put words in God's mouth. If He means to use the creation says as allegorical, He will reveal that to us eventually. Meanwhile we do no wrong in believing the Word rather than allowing speculation to govern our interpretations of His Word.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I think that many have gone beyond the bounds that even the Apostles would not have dared cross. "First of all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture is a mater of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 1 Pet.1:20, 21. But that is for another thread.

[quote:477da0983d] Is it not even possible that you are interpreting Scripture in a way that unnecessarily causes an apparent, but illusory, conflict between God's Word and what can be observed about His created reality?[/quote:477da0983d]
Yes it is possible. But we have no other authority to compel us otherwise for the time being. This question goes two ways: are you so sure concerning science that unnecessary conflicts are raised before they are given a chance to be resolved? Is it possible we are jumping the gun in making assertions concerning Scripture based on science?
[quote:477da0983d] And if you are that certain, have you studied and understood the science involved?[/quote:477da0983d]
I have not been slack in my attempts to understand. I just don't, even though I've tried. But again, it may be because I've concentrated on the Hawking theories and schematics.
[quote:477da0983d] Or is your certainty based solely on the fact that your exegesis is the traditional exegesis and you refuse to consider the possibility that it is not completely accurate? [/quote:477da0983d]
My exegesis, which I am not an expert in, for I do not know Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, is not just traditional, in the sense that it is determined to be a conservationist of the past. As I said, I also believe in the clear revelation of God in "the things created". I am willing to consider possibilities. It is these possibilities in addition to tradition that have rooted my trust in the Confession that states that God has revealed Himself by two means, not just one. To me both are authoritative, and both, to me, indicate a six 24 hr. (or a bit less)-day, so far. Science has only increased my trust in the accuracy of the Word.


The following is a comment on some papers I have read, by authors who are only too ready to paint six-day people into a corner. They have me as a flat-earther, without trial, or without faithful consideration.
I think it is a mistake to assume a conservative attitude in those who stand by the traditional view. It is a mistake to assume that those who doubt scientific assumptions, or theories, or even proven givens, are not considering that science. It is rather the popular field itself that has undermined it's own trustworthiness, so it ought not to cast aspersions on those whose trust is in a surer foundation; on those who are not as scientifically gifted, but aren't fools either.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by JohnV]
 
[quote:1aab3ecb45] It is these possibilities rather than tradition that have rooted my trust in the Confession that states that God has revealed Himself by two means, not just one. To me both are authoritative, and both, to me, indicate a six 24 hr. (or a bit less)-day, so far. [/quote:1aab3ecb45]

First, again, thanks to you and to the others on this thread for the civil, respectful, and thoughtful discussion. I very much respect the way in which you are willing to grapple with the issues, and I do not at all I think you are a "flat-earther."

Second, I wasn't going to respond to any of your specific points because I think we've pretty much reached the end of fruitful discussion on this general issue, at least for now. However, I can't help but respond to the above quote, which I assume refers to both general and Scriptural revelation. And I assume that by general revelation you mean what God has revealed about Himself and which can be discovered about Him and reality by studying the created universe. I understand that your view is that Scripture demands a 6x24 hour creation period viewed even from an earthly perspective. Although I disagree with that view, I can at least see the basis for your position. But on what basis do you suggest that a study of the universe affirmatively suggests that the universe is only a few thousand years old, even from an earth clock perspective. I know of no serious physicists, Christian or not, who think that there is any doubt that stars are millions/billions of light years from us (and, providentially, are thus precisely where they need to be to sustain life on earth). It seems to me that at most you can aruge, as puritansailor does, that in some unknowable way the light only appears to be from objects that far away. But that (in my view unsustainable) supposition is a far cry from scientific evidence/general revelation that the universe is in fact only a few thousand years old.

As I said to puritansailor, I look forward to discussing other, less uncertain, issues with you.

Now, off to make dinner and then settle down with a good book. I perused the Library thread and saw several great recommendations, including a few that I had started but need to finish. Tonight, it will be either Charnock's, "The Existence and Attributes of God," or D.A. Carson's, "A Call to Spiritual Reformation."

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by LauridsenL]
 
Lee:
It has been a pleasure to discuss these things with you as well. You have been gracious and attentive. I did not mean to suggest that you intimated I was a flat-earther. You never did that, not even by implication.

You are right, I did mean the above in respect to general and special revelations. But I did not mean to suggest that there is physical evidence in general revelation alone that precludes all else but the 24hr. day view. What I meant was that truth is a unity, a whole, and that the two revelations cannot contradict without violating truth. It is the two together that are the subject of verification, not one or the other, or two separate unrelated truths, or some special relationship between the two that makes them concide. Both Scripture and general revelation conform to truth, God's truth in things created, and God's truth in His Word.

So the two together, in an overall sense, indicate to me a six-24hr. day. It's just another way of saying that general revelation has not yet forced a view of Scripture that says we're mistaken, like it did after Galileo's time.

I thank you too, Lee. I think that we may have more profitable discussions later. I think both of us are agreed that we shouldn't need to compromise either science or Scripture in order to understand the truth. They will tell us whether or not our science is true, or whether our understanding of Scripture is true. Superimposing theories just will not do.
 
[quote:53401e69b5][i:53401e69b5]Originally posted by LauridsenL[/i:53401e69b5]
I know of no serious physicists, Christian or not, who think that there is any doubt that stars are millions/billions of light years from us (and, providentially, are thus precisely where they need to be to sustain life on earth). It seems to me that at most you can aruge, as puritansailor does, that in some unknowable way the light only appears to be from objects that far away. But that (in my view unsustainable) supposition is a far cry from scientific evidence/general revelation that the universe is in fact only a few thousand years old.
[/quote:53401e69b5]
Just to clarify, I did not argue the above here. I do not doubt the stars being billions of light years away. What I was trying to explain, though too breifly, is how they got there without God having create "false" light. One [b:53401e69b5]possibility[/b:53401e69b5] is that God created all the stars within close proximity to the earth and then spread them out to the universe. I don't think this took thousands of years. It may have only taken the 4th day in which they were created or even happened instantly when God spoke them into existence, so that's what I ment by "spread out". The new developments in time, light, and relativity relationships certainly make this a possibility, so that the light we see from the stars is true and reliable. It's even more tenable adding the supernatural foundation of their creation and placement in the heavens. Again, these are just theories I've heard which provide viable possibility to harmonize Scripture with the [b:53401e69b5]current[/b:53401e69b5] theories of science. Either way, the alleged lack of evidence to convince people of the "young earth" theory in astronomy is no objection to me regarding the 6x24 day interpretation. It just means that they haven't found enough evidence yet to confirm what the Scriptures state. Just needed to clarify what I was trying to say earlier.
 
I mean the rules of biblical interpretation are themselves b

In the last analysis, [i:ce2b8aedd1]these[/i:ce2b8aedd1] rules are exegetically determined. If not, you have erected an independent standard. I think WCF ch. 1 reinforces the idea that the Bible is [i:ce2b8aedd1]comprehensively[/i:ce2b8aedd1] sufficient regarding its own data.

JohnV, (we are on the same side here, I know) I'm not sure I understand what you gathered from my post. You wrote: [quote:ce2b8aedd1]I agree with Bruce for everything except the idea of the reliability of science in light of Scripture. The very rules of interpretation he speaks of are creational, scientific, and not exegetically ascertained. As Lee said, there is a consitency in truth that applies to the truths of Scripture as well as the creation. And I am a believer in the clear revelation of God in "the things created", as Lee pointed out.[/quote:ce2b8aedd1] I am not suggesting that proper rules of scientific inquiry into general revelation are not fully congruent with the Creator God who gave us special revelation. Nor do I think that the proper use of those tools cannot occasionally challenge our biblical understanding. Here's what I said: [quote:ce2b8aedd1][i:ce2b8aedd1]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:ce2b8aedd1]
The Bible is its own interpreter. Outside info is often useful, but in the last analysis it is totally dispensible. Such info is not necessary to attain a thoroughly correct understanding of any given text, and that would be true not just "spiritually" but in every way a text speaks--historically, physically, figuratively etc. We still have rules of interpretation, but those rules (while maybe not spelled out as 'rules' in the Bible) are nevertheless congruent with the Bible. They are [i:ce2b8aedd1]biblical.[/i:ce2b8aedd1] [/quote:ce2b8aedd1] If someone's investigative conclusions lead him to tell us that the earth was not created in one contiguous week, less one day, that challenges us from branch to root: 1) as to whether we have read Genisis one thoroughly (did we skip/add anything?), 2) whether we are understanding this passage correctly to be narrative text, 3) whether we have the right rules for interpreting narrative text, 4) whether there are consistent rules generally for narrative text, 5) whether there is such a thing as narrative text, 6) whether God intends an essential meaning for a passage that stays the same throughout all time and places, 7) whether we can understand our Bibles. And perhaps some others I've left out.

Before we can start to offer new explanations for a passage, we have to understand what was wrong with the old explanation. We work our way up the tree. [b:ce2b8aedd1]We cannot simply decide that the old explanation was wrong because some new challenge has come along and told us it was wrong (Gen 3:4).[/b:ce2b8aedd1] The reason can't arise from an alternate authority without consequently rejecting the original.

Please understand me. "Science" can challenge our biblical interpretations, but it cannot provide the reasons for changing them. And the lower down the branch/trunk/root of the hermeneutial tree their axe strikes at, the more fundamental the changes they are demanding. Intelligently committed 6-dayers are convinced that thus far, [i:ce2b8aedd1]no cogent criticisms[/i:ce2b8aedd1] of the old hermeneutics have been raised. The whole edifice has simply been dismissed as "inadequate" on hubris.
 
Yes, Bruce, we are on the same page. I would use different words than you do, that's all. I certainly do not want to give the idea that I support any notion that the Word is not sufficient for what it teaches; it is it's own best interpreter. I just do not want to give any hint whatsoever of dichotomy in truth as it relates to either general revelation or special revelation. It seems to me that that is the point that is jumped all over on by speculative theories. We have to keep unity here, and we have to keep a distance between revelation and theory. Patrick said it well, as you did too in the four or so points you raise.

You see, someone may try, and people usually do try, raise up a perfect logic concerning the things of creation. But as strong as the logic may be it just cannot dislodge my personal relationship with God, Who reveals Himself in Scripture. I believe Him and His simple words, for I know that He knows what He's talking about, without fault. In the final analysis I believe it because He said it; and I know that He knows His science. He made the things we study, and I see His handiwork in it, because I see His handiwork in myself. There is no subjectivity to that; it is definetly objective. My salvation is not a subjective hope, but an objective certainty. And uncertain certainty is absurd.

As I said, let science apply its theories on itself first before jumping all over special revelation. They are right to assume that they need to coincide; but science needs to coincide with itself first. And we are many, many years away from that. Patrick makes a very good point.:detective:
 
[quote:65f929d77a][i:65f929d77a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:65f929d77a]
Patrick makes a very good point.:detective: [/quote:65f929d77a]
What point was that?

Oh, and I concede your point about the ever so slight difference in the days. I hadn't thought about the orbital factor. But it's still a natural day none the less.
 
Patrick:
[quote:3edadc2252]What point was that?[/quote:3edadc2252]

[quote:3edadc2252]The new developments in time, light, and relativity relationships certainly make this a possibility, so that the light we see from the stars is true and reliable. It's even more tenable adding the supernatural foundation of their creation and placement in the heavens.[/quote:3edadc2252]
This is not the only possibility as well. The fact is that it is not so much that the Scriptural possibiblity is counted out, as that many others are presented to science, many of which could conceivably include the Scriptural account.
 
I agree with you there too. I think the difficulty also is that we are trying to understand supernatural events through the eyes of our uniformity of nature now. I'm not saying that the laws didn't necessarily function then, (i.e the fact that the earth was rotating to give us a day, light existed, etc.), but they were still being created and developed at the time. They were not firmly established as the "norm" until God had finished creating. So, though we may find some ideas in science to explain possibilites, the very nature of the events in the creation days demands a much more comprehensive approach than I think science itself can offer.
 
Lee and Chris,

Interstellar distances are not measured directly. They are extrapolated based on purely optical information (primarily parallax and brightness). Ultimately these extrapolations are rooted in the idea of a constant speed of light, which itself has not been empirically established outside the limited distances man has traveled thus far in space (and some even question its accurate observation within these confines). In short we assume vast distances based on an assumed speed of light.

Point is anything in science that does not start with scripture as a reference must be regarded with skepticism by the Christian. The first chapter of Romans tells us why. The natural tendency in man is to interpret and collate observational data in such a way as to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness". The fact that vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances before we seek to conform Holy Writ to our sin-bound observations and theories.

Thanks,
Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dannyhyde
  • Locked
Letham's "In the Space of Six Days"
Replies
8
Views
5K
Backwoods Presbyterian
Backwoods Presbyterian
W
  • Locked
The Creation Week
2 3
Replies
85
Views
10K
Brian Withnell
Brian Withnell
Romans922
  • Locked
Special Days (WCF)
Replies
4
Views
3K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
SeanAnderson
  • Locked
Days of public thanksgiving and humiliation in a secularist society
Replies
3
Views
1K
Peairtach
Peairtach
Hamalas
Reading the Westminster Standards in 30 Days
Replies
2
Views
647
Jonathco
Jonathco
Back
Top