Genesis 1:1-2:3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seven 24 hour days. I just don't see any necessity to step aside of or complicate the plain teaching of the text.
 
I almost voted 7. Not only is it hard for me to keep 1 & 7 separate, 7 just sounds so free-spirited.
 
there are several excellent listing of the various positions at:

for creation-evolution-design debate spectrum of positions see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqiposs.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html

i believe that the lhaarsma's is the most complete.
however none of them sound anything like number 7 in the poll above.
i wonder if this poll is trying to prove something rather than to gauge sentiment?
what's the word i'm looking for? prejudicial language
Definition:

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

from: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php

[Edited on 3-4-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
 
I am convinced that someone would have to do gymnastics with the text to get it to say anything other then seven literal 24 hour days.
 
Although my thought does lean toward the literal interpretation, at this point I essentially give at least some liberty to each position that affirms the historicity of the garden account and creation ex nihilo...much like the issue of eschatology for me at least right now, where I don't conclusively reject any common position other than hyper-Preterism and the Dispensational view.
 
A long time.

Yet less than a ten billioneth millioneth of a second with regards to eternity.

( worth the edit )...

Could not vote, no real option for me. I am not a Darwi.

lol!

Forgot my mantra...'Does it matter' ?

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]
 
As a matter of biblical understanding, I believe the Bible teaches seven days, so that's what I'm sticking to.

The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time.

However, I see no need to capitulate with the "apparent" age of creation that evolution promotes. 1. Evolutionary theory itself necessitates the "scientific" age of the earth and universe more than the actual evidence. 2. Especially when it comes to light from stars, etc., I think it is easily understandable that God simply created things with apparent age. Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, as were the animals I would assume. Why couldn't the stars be old enough to have even died out at that time?
 
Originally posted by bradofshaw
As a matter of biblical understanding, I believe the Bible teaches seven days, so that's what I'm sticking to.

The length of those days seems unneccesary to me, as God is able to do things beyond the constraints of time, and the earth didn't have a solar orbit untill at least the fourth day. I would tend to think that this was the time when he set the solar system in motion in such a way to record the passage of time based on the earth turning on its axis while spinning around the sun. Seems odd if He would have done things in a year long increment before that on every other day though, so I tend to think he would have instituted 24 hour days at the beginning of time, and only on the 4th day created a way for earth to mark that time.

However, I see no need to capitulate with the "apparent" age of creation that evolution promotes. 1. Evolutionary theory itself necessitates the "scientific" age of the earth and universe more than the actual evidence. 2. Especially when it comes to light from stars, etc., I think it is easily understandable that God simply created things with apparent age. Adam and Eve were fully grown adults, as were the animals I would assume. Why couldn't the stars be old enough to have even died out at that time?

The light from stars thing always stuck me, until someone pointed out that whenevre God creates, he creates mature and fully functional, with an appearance of history it never had (man, Jesus' fish and bread, etc).
 
I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.
 
On fossil strata and so forth - its silliness to assume, which evolutionists do, that the strata represents millions of years as the records continually go deeper. What they need to do is seriously bring out the findings of Mt St. Helens after it blew. Go figure, in 8 minutes (yes, that's right - 8 whole minutes) it created petrified forests layered at differentiation levels of petrification (as if to think it happened over millions of years like in Yellowstone), layered strata (just like you see in the fossil records), and a miniature Grand Canyon. But they'll never tell because information like that will overthrow evolution completely.

A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days. If Mt. St. Helens can do it in 8 minutes on a small scale, 40 days would be enough time on a large scale.
 
I would've voted...but you didn't have the literal 6 24hr day option up there...I believe God rested on the 7th...

(yes, I'm being ornery)
 
Go figure, in 8 minutes (yes, that's right - 8 whole minutes) it created petrified forests layered at differentiation levels of petrification (as if to think it happened over millions of years like in Yellowstone), layered strata (just like you see in the fossil records), and a miniature Grand Canyon.

do you have a reference to them being petrified as a result of being buried in ash?
 
My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.

Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.


show.gif


[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]
 
I voted literal seven days. Truth be told, I'm not sure this is entirely fair to the text. However, the other options don't seem to be remotely fair to the text.
 
Originally posted by bradofshaw
I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.

Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)
This theory, though the minority, was developed precisely because the fossil record was a joke. The theory, by the way, claims that we don't have transitional forms because evolution has a long period of stasis punctuated by short bursts of evolutionary change. So, we see that the theory has been formulated in such a way that the non-evidence of intermediate fossils is actually evidence for evolution! It's like: my evidence is that there wouldn't have been any evidence!
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by bradofshaw
I do wonder about the fossile records, because I don't really know anything but the evolutionary view of it. It does seem weird if God would have created layers of fossiles predating creation, but again, no reason he couldn't have, especially when you consider the abundance of oil. I've always figured the fossile records are pretty screwed up by the flood.

Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)
This theory, though the minority, was developed precisely because the fossil record was a joke. The theory, by the way, claims that we don't have transitional forms because evolution has a long period of stasis punctuated by short bursts of evolutionary change. So, we see that the theory has been formulated in such a way that the non-evidence of intermediate fossils is actually evidence for evolution! It's like: my evidence is that there wouldn't have been any evidence!

One major treatment of that, written on the popular level, is Stephen Jay Gould's Full House. While I naturally don't agree with the core of his evolutionary thesis, the book itself as a whole is an extremely fascinating (and entertaining, I might add) read nonetheless, including all the relating factors and tangents it explores in a variety of categories. I think you might enjoy it.
 
Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek)

Yeah, I'm aware of the ways evolutionists try to explain the holes in the fossil records. I was just wondering whether or not the existence of the fossil record was something that lead people to take alternate views on creation. In other words, the fossils that are there couldn't have developed in the timeframe of young earth 6 day creationism. Dr. McMahon seems to confirm that the flood and similar catastrophic events can account for the presence of fossiles, even in a relatively young earth.

I'm also aware that dating methods are highly biased, and that carbon dating is incredibly scetchy. Does dating based on fossile records go something like this:

1. we have x layers of fossils.
2. it takes about x number of years for a fossil to form
3. therefore, when you add fossil layers a, b, and c together, you figure the earth must be x years old.

I seem to remember people who favor the cataclysmic view of Genesis 1 seem to cite the fossil record.
 
I was a staunch literalist until I watched Kent Hovind debate Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg show. Man was that hilarious!

Persbyrino, I can see the building in your avatar from my desk at work.
 
Here's what I think about this:

I think we should all remember that if ( hypothetically ) a denomination, say, I ( variable ) P ( Presbyterian ) C ( Church ) of X ( variable ) , the IPCX, votes that the Gap Theory is a permissible view under the Confessions, then it is de facto the case that the literal seven-day view is not the official doctrinal stance of that denomination. If the seven-day view is a doctrinal stance, then the other views cannot be deemed as adiaphora, indifferent. Likewise, if any of the views, such as the Gap Theory, is viewed as adiaphora, then if follows that the seven-day view is also at best adiaphora. A differing or competing view cannot be indifferent to the official doctrinal view.

Where there is difference of views allowed, there lacks a doctrinal stance of a specific view.

The question is, then, whether the IPCX is being faithful to the Confessions, or whether the Confessions are not as clearly six-day as we like to believe? We all have our views, but none of us individually or as a group is greater than the church.

Therefore, going one step further, it is not right for an office-bearer to go beyond the authority of his church to declare as authoritative what the deonomination has not declared authoritative.

In another thread I came down kind of strong on a respected church leader for standing for one view over against another, by use of his office. But I also said what it was that I would teach if I had the office to teach. As much as I hold to the six-day view, it may be the fact that it is not the official view of the church, or is not deemed doctrinal. Just teaching the six-day view, because I think its Biblical and right, but is not the denomination's decision on it, would then not be in union with the church which has authorized me to teach. If an office was my responsibility, then union and mutual support would be a part of that office. A board of elders does not work if they are against each other, instead of able to count on each others' support.

I voted seven day. I think it stands alone among all the views as the one that the Bible mentions. But I wouldn't divide the church over it. I would take exception to an elder or minister thinking that they then have the right to teach whatever view they themselves are convinced of or want. But that has nothing to do with the views themselves; its a matter of office and authority.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by JohnV]
 
Originally posted by Presbyrino
My vote was: 7 literal 24 hour days.

Ok, someone voted they were an ape. When did he get to join the puritan board? I never got to properly welcome him.


show.gif


[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Presbyrino]

I must confess. My ape-like finger clicked when it shouldn't have. But I did think that answer was funny.

I'm a 6 dayer, but I'm not committed to the 24 hour part. After all, in Joshua's day there was a long day too. I'm comfortable with it being six literal days of creation and leaving the stopwatch out of it.

Vic
 
There is, of course, a serious problem with believing in a literal six-day creation....................






......................Why did it take so long? :D
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I would've voted...but you didn't have the literal 6 24hr day option up there...I believe God rested on the 7th...

(yes, I'm being ornery)
Ah, yes, except that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 covers a 7 day period. Are you saying that Gen 2:3 really refers to the 6th 24 hour day?!

:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top