Sheniy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I am new here ,and not of a protestant or American background,so my refences may be diffrent from yours.

 First of all ,I believe in an old earth ,but also in Creation by God, within a limited time . I also believe that the bible is God's Testament to His flock ,

before He finally judges us . It is not the only testament He has put out, since He created the 'world' but the LAST,and therefore the most important. 

 

If  we see the bible ,as saying everything God has ever had to say to us since time began ,we will never grow to be the great créations we were,

but like children ,who cannot let go of our true ,but basic exercise book .   I think God maybe preparing us for Heaven ,right here on earth ,by challenging us . If people lose their faith because there is an  'error in the bible' ,they don't have the gift of the 'Spirit' ,which cannot be doubted,  while All the Facts one can discuss without ever being sure . 

Hi organic!

 

Just curious, what else do you look to as God's word?   You mentioned the "gift of the Spirit".  Is your background pentacostal or something similar?

 

 

First ,I am horrified by the bad setting of the post ,please excuse,it is a new one,french style,and I must  get accustomed to the difference.

 

Dear Sheniy, 

 

 My background is originally Roman Catholic,but I study a lot ,and worked with people from India ,and other backgrounds.

 

My cousin is a missionary in India!  She sends me pictures all the time.  Beautiful people. 

I never would have guess Roman Catholic, though. Do you still consider yourself a Christian?

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation?

Yes I can.  

 

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is a standard reference for students of Hebrew has this to say about the word, "mut" (Heb. to die):

 

"The normative OT teaching about death is presented i Gen. 3:3 where God warns Adam and EVe that death is the result of rebellion against His commands.  Since God's purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undresiralbe, but necessary result of disobedience.  The physical corruption of the physical of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death.  Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin.  It originated with sin.  A grand theme of the OT is God's holiness, which separates Him from all that is not in harmony with His character.  Death, then in the OT means ulimate separation from God due to sin and sin is any rebellion or lack of conformity to His holy will.  All men are then in a sense what the Hebrews call, "sons of death," that is, they deserve to die because they are sinners."  (TWOT, vol. 1, p 497)

This isn't the reference I was looking for. There was something on the last half of the verse about the consequences of sin. I was expecting more of a breakdown of the phrase you quoted in Hebrew.

Btw, this looks like an excellent resource for studying the bible. I added it to my amazon wishlist. Would you recommend it?

2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew.

The problem with that is that one doesn't need to know one letter of Hebrew to know and understand that God's word.

The Bible makes it very clear that physical death and decay in this world is the product of sin.   Jesus had to die physically in order to redeem us from death, and the effects of redemption are not limited to the spiritual sphere.  God is intimately involved in every area of the human experience, not just in the spirtiual.

 

The book of Revelation makes it clear that the results of redemption include the eradication of sin and both Physical and spiritual death.   So really to deny that sin didn't bring on physical death, sickness, disease and universal decay is to reject the testimony of Scripture.

Death is the consequence of sin. Ok. Man sinned and spiritually died, God removed the Tree of Life (or removed man from the Garden), man began to revert back to his original state of dust (aka physical death). (This really makes sense if we include clb's Holy of Holies in the Garden idea. I wish he were here to give his thoughts on this)

Death isn't a thing to be created or destroyed. It is the absence of life.

Same as dark is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Death, dark, and cold are just names we give to describe the absence of something. They are not things in themselves, therefore can't be made or unmade. If you remove the source of light from a room, you have no light. Flick on the light and the darkness will flee. But you can't add a source of darkness to a lit room.  The lowest temperature possible, absolute zero (-273.15 degrees celcius) is the lack of all energy (heat). There is no source of cold.

Same goes for death. Remove the Source of Life, and you have no life.

When the Source of Life returns, we will all have new bodies, and death will be no more.

I am always amazed at reading threads like this how easily it is to lead people away from the truth.  Years ago I wondered how anyone could be duped in to following the anti-Christ, and how he could deceive even the very elect of God.   This thread shows me that it wouldn't be that hard at all.  People are hungry for someone, anyone to give them an excuse, any excuse they can cling to  that will justify rejecting the clear and present truth that is contained in God's word..

 

I will have to agree with Shiloh about death being both physical and spiritual.  The L-rd says that "the wages of sin is DEATH, but the Gift of G-d is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our L-rd.

 

Adam and Eve were made complete and perfect.  G-d does not make any thing void or lacking.  What He makes is good and perfect.

They were given free will and could choose to disobey.

They were allowed to eat from all in the garden, including the Tree of Life, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Tree of Life could cause them to live forever.  However, when they ate of the forbidden tree, they sinned and their wages for that sin was Death.  Now, they would eventually physically die, (no longer access to the Tree of Life), and die spiritually - separation from G-d. 

We who believe in the L-rd, have passed from death to life, and have been given the gift of eternal life.  We are no longer separated from G-d, but we all will still physically die. We will then forever be with the L-rd and we will be granted the right to eat from the Tree of Life. See Rev. 22:14.

This is pretty much what I said

The last phrase in Hebrew reads, "m'menoo ki b'yom akhelkha m'menoomot t'mut"  The grammatical structure in the Heberw indicates both an immediate death and a process of death.

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation?

2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew.

I still hold to my previous assertion that that verse doesn't necessarily prove that physical death was caused by the fall.

 

 

 

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

 

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

Again with the mockery of the word of God.  Why do you hate the Bible so much???  Sorry, but you don't anything about how textual analysis works.

 

OldSchool: I think there are a lot of metaphorical aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. In fact, the whole bible is analogous in nature, including that parts that also happened literally. God definitely uses history to teach us. He also used it as part of prophecy or foreshadowing of the future.  There are countless examples of this.

As for the "imaginative" parts of the bible: I think we need to be careful rejecting something as actually happening just because it is hard to believe. This, I believe, is the basis for all of Shiloh's arguments and the reason he gets so heated at times. I do agree with him on this...to a point.

But the bible was not intended to be taken completely literally in every part. The words it uses don't always refer to physical things.

We all see through a glass darkly, we only know in part. I honestly believe when we find out the truth of what actually happened, it will be much different than what we've concocted with our limited, fallible minds and the little information that we have.

Shiloh: Was that verbal lashing really necessary? OldSchool has some legitimate questions. And he seems to be a Christian, so why would you assume he hates the bible? Please, could you be a bit kinder in your posts. It is getting harder and harder to remain civil with you.

1Cr 13:2

If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

I'd be interested in seeing this, too.

So I think I misunderstood your earlier post.

I was interested in what you said on the Holy of Holies (a favorite subject of mine). Was that what you were referring to here?

 

Just becuase YOU haven't seen it in the Scriptures doesn't mean I am the one making assumptions.   Adam died spritiually the minute he disobeyed God.  His physical death is connected to that because God said the following:

 

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:17-19)

 

So it is pretty clear that curse of death extended to man spiritually and physically due to Adam's disoebdience.   So if man were already set to die physically even if he hadn't sinned, that curse makes no sense.   So if man hadn't died spiritually, he would not have died physically.

 

There is nothing in this passage that says that death in the physical sense was part of the curse, just that till he died he would have to toil under the curse.

 

I agree. I don't think that verse proves a connection between physical and spiritual death. You seem to be speculating, Shiloh.

Gen 2:17

but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

I think we all agree this refers to Adam's spiritual death, or separation from God, due to Adam's disobedience.

However, Adam lived to be 930 years old, so this can't be referring to physical death, which did not occur within a day, as the verse suggests.

So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation.  Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it. Also, as someone else stated (can't find the post), God took away our immortality (the tree of life) after the fall to protect us from the pain and misery of eternal separation from God (aka hell on earth).  It will be returned in the new heaven and new earth.

Gen 3:23-25

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I think someone else posted something similar, but I couldn't find it.

LookingForAnswers

    

Are you?

His agenda is clearly put forth in his manner of post...

Yeah. He seems to be looking for answers.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate

Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3).

View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32

View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33

View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34

If you had to choose one, which one, if any?

PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article.

I would have to say #2.

 

 

 

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

 

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. 

 

hello,

 

I don't think we've ever spoken.

 

It doesn't matter much, but I am curious, are you.....how should I say........a zealot for the YEarth view?

 

clb

 

I used to be. 

Love it!

His Simply Nothing album is always on my playlist. I don't have a favorite song, but this one's pretty close.

http://youtu.be/UhXYpje7j-Y

 

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

 

I'd be interested in seeing this, too. 

I am going to disect scribble all over this post with my scalpel blue marker.
 

 

 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

None. Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense. Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity.

 

Yeah. Because they couldn't accept the claim of a young earth.

Isn't this arguing in favor of my point?

 

Well, no. Because they were not rejecting YEC in a vacuum. What...? If you could find someone not already pretty much convinced of an old earth, who had taken science classes in highschool and universities that teach OEC, Evolution, etc. And present THAT person with the YEC, how would they respond? I don't know if that question can be answered.
How exactly is that a vacuum? You'd be looking for someone with no exposure to any theories of the creation of the world. Then give them the bible and see what they come up with. If I'd lived, say, 1000 years ago and read the bible for the first time, I likely wouldn't have any issues with the concept of a young earth. I would also likely believe that the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe. (<---clicky)



The reason that people cannot accept YEC is not because YEC on its own has no merit and is just too far out for anyone to believe. It is because most people have already been convinced of the OE or evolutionary models already. They are not blank slates looking at the YEC model for the first time without any preconceptions. That makes a difference.
You seem to have misunderstood the original question. I was talking about seekers (meaning anyone searching for truth) rejecting Christianity as a whole because it is so inextricably tied with YEC, which they cannot accept. Your first reply to this seem in line with (and in favor of) this with that example of former Christians rejecting their faith for atheism because evolution made more sense than YEC.

Which is why your next sentence doesn't really make sense...


YEC has never made anyone an atheist. YEC was rejected in favor of Evolution because to them Evolution is better and more reasonable.
Clearly, YEC is at least partially to blame for those people falling away. If we ask them, I'm sure they'd agree.

 

Why would we want to place our faith in a possibility and not in the truth? There are all kinds of possibilities, but that really isn't something you can anchor your heart to. As Christians we should be after the truth.

As of yet, I have not met any single person who was actively and consciously seeking deception. I don't know why anyone would want to.

I was a YEC for decades. I read the creationist books and websites and argued fervently in favor of a young earth. It was a "truth" I "anchored my heart to" (as you say). So when that specific "truth" came under fire (again and again), my whole faith was shaken. Hard.
I took this to God in prayer. I realized that this wasn't a salvation issue, and that my faith would survive without it. So I let it go. IMHO, it wasn't a hill to die on.

Maybe I still believe. I don't know. I'm on the fence. And I might just stay here. I have a nice view of both sides.

 

I understand. YEC is mocked and ridiculed, swore at. It isn't easy. I can imagine the prophets in the OT contemplating whether being rejected by the people and having to suffer reproach for their message was really kind of overrated.


Just because something isn't a salvation issue, doesn't mean it isn't important. But it is not as important as a salvation issue. We are called on sometimes to stand for something in God's word when it isn't popular and everyone else is telling you are crazy for standing on that part of Gods' word. That's true. Although you're implying I backed down due to pressure from others. Not even kinda true. I had my own questions that YEC couldn't answer. I rejected YEC because I felt it was actually a hindrance to my faith in the validity and inerrancy of the Word of God.   It is easier to let go and just roll with the crowd and get along.

The problem that I would see in your above comments is this: What's next? What's the next part of God's word that you will let go of when it gets too hot in the kitchen?  Where do we stop?


Figured this would come up sooner or later. This is the crux of your whole argument, isn't it? If I reject YEC, I reject the God's Word.  That's what you're saying, right? 

I believed that lie once. It lead to fear that my faith would eventually crumble due to lack of foundation. If I question one part of God's Word, I would eventually question all of it until my faith eventually spiraled into the trash.


If we surrender Genesis 1 to the world, they won't be satisfied. They will demand more, until the whole Bible is nothing more than an irrelevant, man-made philosphy book and Jesus was just a great guy with some nice things to say, but not to be taken literally.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I used to fear.

Always a blessing to see your avatar and your name being posted,

This made my day! Thank you.

"There is no such thing as a Hebrew "translation."  There are translations of Hebrew into other languages, but there are no Hebrew translations of the Bible.  Hebrew is an orginal language, not a translation.

*facepalm* I meant "translations of Hebrew". Oy.

Sorry. I'm a bit sleep-deprived. 

 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

None.  Usually, Christianity is rejected on the grounds that evolution makes more sense.  Many atheists on this board who claim to have been Christians before cite evolution as a major enabler for their deconversion from Christianity.

 

Yeah. Because they couldn't accept the claim of a young earth.

Isn't this arguing in favor of my point?

Why would we want to place our faith in a possibility and not in the truth?   There are all kinds of possibilities, but that really isn't something you can anchor your heart to.   As Christians we should be after the truth.

As of yet, I have not met any single person who was actively and consciously seeking deception.  I don't know why anyone would want to.  

I was a YEC for decades.  I read the creationist books and websites and argued fervently in favor of a young earth. It was a "truth" I "anchored my heart to" (as you say).  So when that specific "truth" came under fire (again and again), my whole faith was shaken. Hard.

 I took this to God in prayer.  I realized that this wasn't a salvation issue, and that my faith would survive without it.  So I let it go.  IMHO, it wasn't a hill to die on.

Maybe I still believe.  I don't know.  I'm on the fence.  And I might just stay here. I have a nice view of both sides.

In John 1:1, which I have already referenced numerous times,  "In the beginning".  This Greek phrase means, the very first order, first in place, time, order.  We see in the verse that "in the beginning" was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.  He was with G-d "in the beginning".  Through him all things were made.

 

Now go to Ge. 1:1.  "In the beginning".  The Hebrew phrase, means the same thing...the very first order, first in time, place, order.  We see in this verse G-d created the heavens and the earth.  This is not an introductory phrase to what follows.  It is a statement that He created from the beginning.  The beginning was the Word.  He created the heavens.  The heavens are His abode, the celestial bodies and the sky.

 

Now go to He. 1:10  "In the beginning" - the same phrase.  "In the beginning, O L-rd, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."  By the way, "foundations of the earth" is the building block.  You must lay a foundation before you can build on it.

 

G-d has been creating, since "in the beginning.  He began by laying the foundations of the earth.  If you think He has only been creating the heavens and the earth over the last 10,000 years, then we have to conclude G-d is equally as young.  Definitely not so.  He is the Ancient of Days - The Ancient of All Eternity.

*runs for bible*

Never mind.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8

These discussions really push me to dig deeper into Scripture. Thanks for the inspiration, guys.

When God opened the Torah with the Creation account, what was His purpose? Was He concerned with making His people acquainted with the heavens and the earth, or was He concerned with acquainting His people with Himself?

 

I believe His heart is for the people to know Him. Thus, I believe that explained the workings of Creation in such a way as for the people to understand Him.

 

So what if we stepped aside for a moment away from time frames and whether or not the Pinwheel Galaxy was created on the fourth Day and looked at what is God conveying to us that He wants us to know about Him?

My belief is that God is telling His people, "This is how I turned the darkness into a new dawning!" more so than "Look at what I can do in 24 hours!"

Here is why.

While the last interpretation may give you a sense of the bigness of God, it also makes Him seem, well, "out there", unapproachable. The first gives a sense of the nearness of God, like the gentle hands caressing an injured bird an healing its wings. Instead of God's magnificence being the "big power", His magnificence is being the healer, the deliverer, the restorer - like we see Jesus when He walked this earth.

When darkness is surrounding me and my life is in chaos, I don't need the Great Cosmic Being who created a septillion stars and innumerably more planets in 24 hours, I need the God who is attached to my chaos, darkness, and void, and will bring me into His light, make order of the chaos, and bring new life out of the void.

Knowing God for His power did not make the people fall in love with Him. In fact, they kept disrespecting His power time and time again (grumbling, complaining, disobeying).

So what would be the most likely scenario of what was in His heart - another description of His power, or a description of His love, healing, and deliverance, traits that would more likely draw His people to love Him?

I soooo agree with this.

We can debate exegesis, hebrew translations and scientific theories until we are blue, but I believe the beginning of Genesis was intended to introduce us to the One who spoke the universe into existence, not necessarily to specify the details of how exactly He did this.  Why does that matter?   I'm sure this has been said before, but Genesis isn't a science text book and shouldn't be used as one.  Does it need to be absolutely literal? I don't think that was the intent of the author.  Can you take it that way?  Sure, if you like.

Now the question is, why are they reported in that particular way, and that is the question I wonder about.

My personal opinion (other than stated above) on this based on study and speculation, and a little help from google for specifics I can't remember:

Genesis was written by Moses.  I am pretty sure he wasn't around during creation, so I think the written account of the beginning of the world was passed down from Adam through the generations (thousands of years, give or take).  I imagine Adam with his great-great-great-great grandchildren on his knee, recalling  the times he walked with God in the Garden.  Moses recorded the stories in Genesis, but they were probably passed down orally through the millenia.  I still trust that scripture is inspired, so Moses either recorded what he'd heard and/or was divinely shown these things.  Since no man was around during creation, it would have to be divinely inspired, either directly to Moses, or to someone else (Adam? Enoch? Abraham?) and passed on.  We trust the account of Moses (though he wasn't an eyewitness to the events of Genesis) just as we trust the men who decided which books are a part of the scripture we currently hold.

 There is something else in the  seven day account of Creation: God's standard for the Jewish daily, and weekly schedule (and more).  This was further established by (guess who?) Moses in later books when he gives the Israelites the Law. 

Arguments for the literal interpretation of the word "day" often point to the following: "it was evening and it was morning, the nth day" as evidence of a literal day. Why would that be included if it wasn't meant to be literal?  I am pretty sure the traditional Jewish day begins at sundown and ends the next day. They seem to be imitating God.  Maybe this was the intent of the phrase?  I can't remember if this is a specific law or just tradition. ( If this is how God's days go, then we're doing it wrong. lol)

Why did God specify seven days?  The number seven is huge in the bible (represents spiritual completeness, I believe).  Seven days, seven lampstands, seven trumpets, seven years, seven letters to the seven churches, seventy seven times seven, the seven spirits of God, et cetera.  The Jewish work week also imitated God during creation (work 6 days, rest the 7th).  They even had a Feast of Weeks (Shavuot means weeks; also called pentacost which means fiftieth day) which took place at the end of a "week of weeks".  Their entire culture was centered on this idea of a period of seven.  It was used in treatment of slaves/servants and the land they lived off of, among other things that I can't remember off-hand.

   Was this period of seven important because it was part of the creation account, or was the creation account revealed in a period of seven to reinforce the importance of a period of seven in the Jewish culture? 

(I can provide scripture references for much of this, but I don't have time to look right now.  Just throwing it out there for discussion.)

    Does my faith suffer if I don't take the Genesis account as literal 24 hour days?  No.

  Does this call into question the inerrancy of the bible? No.

Do I believe it's possible that God could create the universe in less than a week?  Yes. Of course.

Do I believe that he did?      Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know.  I wasn't there.

(snip)

 

Conclusion - There are too many more verses that can support a previous social system here on earth before Adam.  There is a case to support this.  Besides, G-d says His nature and His creation testify of Him.  We have science that can show us that the age of the present earth and universe is much greater than 10,000 years.  YE have to ask, “if G-d really is the Creator He claims to be in John 1:1, creating from the beginning, and He calls himself the Ancient of Days, what was G-d doing prior to the last 10,000 years?”  What was He doing for eons and eons and eons and eons?  OE and YE will never agree, but at least we can understand why each of us differs and what can lead to different viewpoints, while still being a believing and loving body.

   That...was fascinating.  The stuff about the hebrew translations: I have seen much of that before, but I don't remember where I read it.  The part about a social system before Adam, though...

Interesting... *strokes chin thoughtfully*

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

I believe this is where I read it! Haha.  Thanks, Spock.

I quickly scanned the article again, and I remember running across this before.

 

Today, the truth of the Bible is under serious attack based upon the claim, by some, that the Earth is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

 

For evangelism, the issue is clear. Non-believers who decide to explore the Bible and the claims of Christ will typically start with the first page of the Bible. If the opponents of Christianity can impugn the truthfulness of the Bible on the first page, the claims of Christ may never be seriously considered.

I have seen something like this happen with a family member.  Nearly wrecked his faith. 

How many seekers have we pushed away because they couldn't accept this claim of a young earth?

This is not to say that the Young Earth model is wrong necessarily.  It's just...does it have to be the only possibility?  Why is the idea of an old earth so terrible?

This song always gives me chills.

And that kid is adorable. 

I LOVE this song!  Fav Christmas song, I think.

Great vids!