Lekcit

So that answers my question. You don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Then my conversation with you is done. I cannot argue something from a Biblical perspective when they don't even believe the Bible is true. In Him.

Now again, Fog, I need to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible or is it that they looked around and made everything up because they wanted a nifty creation story like the other cultures? Which is it? Either God inspired the WHOLE Bible or none of it. And if He inspired it, then we must take the words at face value or not at all. That's the problem with trying to make the Bible jive with millions of years. We degrade our stance on Biblical authority and the secular world says, "If you can insert personal opinion into 6 days, then how do we know that the story of the Gospel should be taken at face value..." It is a dangerous slippery, slope which is part of the reason why society is in the condition it is in now. No one is willing to take a stand on Biblical authority. Just think about it. In Him.

Well, as you already know, ICR is definitely NOT AiG. I am not as familiar with ICR as I am with AiG but I do know that the folks at AiG are more than willing to respond in the best way possible to any email question that you send provided that it is cordial in nature and shows a legitimate desire to learn more. If you go to them with accusations and preconceptions, I suspect you will not get the answers you seek but if you show that you just want to know they should respond in kind. I cannot speak with any knowledge; however, about ICR. Remember, openness is the key. In Him.

SA, Since I am in no way affiliated with AiG, other than they have shown me a lot of information, I cannot give the answer to your question. If you feel that their information is somehow flawed, the best thing I can suggest is to go to their site and email some of them. Many of them were secular scientists and were unable to make sense of much of what they saw when viewed through the lens of "millions of years" so they evaluated and found that things began to make sense when viewed through the Biblical lens. I especially would recommend that you email Ken Ham, Dr Gary Parker (whom I've met personally many years ago), and Dr Jonathan Sarfati. As to your question Nebula, I'm sorry you couldn't understand the first article you went to, did you try the second or third or any of the others. Surely you don't expect to gain all knowledge on a subject based on what you read in one single article, do you? What would happen if our doctors did that I wonder... Melo, no numbers do not necessarily imply a 24 hour period but that was not the point. My point, which I've made several times now, is that when the word yom is used in conjunction with a number, in Hebrew, it always means a literal day. I never said that just because the days were numbered that they were literal. Only that because yom was used in conjunction with a number it was a literal day. In Him.

SA, Like my mother always said, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." No need to engage in straw men. They are peer reviewed by people with accredited doctorates in those fields. They just happen to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and their views of such things makes much more sense when viewed through the lens of creation rather than evolution.

Nebula, After Noah's flood. It would take more time than I have to show you but check out these articles for an honest treatment on the subject. Lest you think those articles are junk keep in mind that all the articles published by Answers in Genesis are peer reviewed. Ice Age Information In Him.

Jacee, I assure you that comment was not directed at you. The person to whom it referred knew who they were but has chosen to get mired in semantics rather than discussing the issue. Where are you? PM me if you'd rather everyone else not know. Oh and it ain't hot here. I don't know about where you are but it ain't hot where I am. In Him.

You are correct about the Hebrew word "yom." It can mean period of time or a 24 hour period but in Genesis chapter 1 it means 24 hours. You are also right that the word's meaning is dependant upon context. Take a look. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with the phrase "evening and morning" it means a literal day. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with the word "night" it means a literal day. Aside from Genesis 1 every other time in the Old Testament, when yom is used in conjunction with a number it means a literal day. Now look at Genesis 1 and what do you see? You see the word "night, the phrase evening and morning, and a number used in conjunction with the word yom (day). I am unclear how this could mean anything other than a literal day. Not one but three indications that the word day means a literal day. So again I am confused and go back to my original point. If you take the stance of Scripture alone, the meaning of the word yom in Genesis 1 is clearly a literal day. Furthermore there are better Hebrew words to use if the the idea of long periods are meant. Study your Hebrew and you'll see that the most common usage of the word yom is for a literal day. There are better words for long periods such as qedem (ancient or old), olam (everlasting, eternity, perpetual), dor (an age or revolution of time), tamid (continually), ad (unlimited time), orek (when used with yom means a length of days), shanah (year or revolution of time, most used to signify the changing of seasons), netsach (forever). You see there are many better words to use if the meaning was intended to show long periods of time. Also you mention the usage of the word yom in Gen 2:4. I would agree with you that does mean a period of time. But look is it used in conjunction with the word night, the phrase evening and morning, or a number? No. What does it say? Day. It means in the "time" that God created and then it continued to hearken back and elaborate on the creation of man on the sixth day. So again, I fail to understand that when you use the Bible to support itself, which by the way is what should happen, then the clearest and most obvious understanding is that the word yom in Genesis 1 means a literal day. Check this article for some additional information: How long were the days of Genesis 1? In Him.

And Jacee, I applaude you for your openness to understanding. Check my link from before. There is just as much evidence to show that there is no gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. The point I was making was that when taking Scripture alone there is nothing to suggest an old earth. Again check the information I linked to previously and you will see. Also anyone that thinks that I meant that Psalms was the only book to be taken figuratively is delusional and cannot understand the simple concept of using one example of many. Psalms was offered as one instance not the only instance. (But then Fog, you knew that's what I meant.) In Him.

Fog, I will pretend that you really want an answer to this question and answer it but keep in mind that I know you are asking this question in an effort to catch me in a lapse of hypocrisy. I've been having this debate for too long to be tricked by you. You remind me of the lawyers that I deal with at work, asking questions they already know the answer to. To answer your question, it's dependant on context. One would never read Psalms literally because it is a book of poetry. However, one would take the four Gospels and Acts literally because they are history books. The same holds true for Genesis through Chronicles and others. The book of Genesis is a history book and as such should be taken in a literal fashion. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest otherwise. Therefore if God says "6 days" then 6 days it is. Furthermore, Exodus is a history book and in the giving of the Ten Commandments harkens back to Genesis and therefore shows its historical validity. In Him.

Not to overuse the analogy bit but I think I can offer some assistance. The first thing to remember is something that one of my Old Testament professors in college taught us. He said, The Old Testament does not teach the Trinity but it allows for it. Look at Genesis 1 in the creation of man. God said, "Let Us make man in our image." There are others that have been mentioned as well such as the one from Deuteronomy. One of the best ways to explain and understand the Trinity (I use this with children, by the way.) is to think of an egg. It is an egg. One egg. Simple to understand. However when we crack open the egg we see parts, three main parts. There is the shell, the white, and the yolk but all still an egg. Hope this helps. In Him.

Again Jacee, I go back to my earlier point. There is no Biblical evidence to support a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. No where in all of Scripture is that ever seen or supported. It is simply another one of man's ways to add millions of years to the Bible. Now, if you want to believe that, fine by me. My point was that if you want to be sola scriptura, or scripture alone, then you don't get the idea of millions of years anywhere. My basic earlier point was that the clearest understanding is taking God at His word and calling it 6 literal days. In Him.

This course of conversation always scares me. It scares me because it goes against scripture. If you strive to do as those in the Reformation sought to do then you will see what I mean. The cry of the reformers was "Sola Scriptura", or Scripture Alone. And if you take scripture alone, no where does it suggest that 6 days were not literal days or that they were longer at the time of creation than when Jesus walked the earth. Jesus quoted the Old Testament usage of the word day and he clearly meant a literal day, so why shouldn't we, upon reading scripture only, come to the same conclusion. Heck even Old Earth Creationists agree that when you read scripture only, the most logical conclusion is 6 days are literal. Paddle Pung from Wheaton College, a noted Old Earther, even stated that when you take only scripture, the concept of an old earth doesn't even enter in. There are others that, even though they believe the earth to be old, agree that when you read scripture only and take it for its own merits, that it does not teach an old earth. It's only when we attempt to place man's interpretation of millions of years that we try to make that application fit in with the Bible. Now, you can believe that the earth is millions of years old if you feel that's what the external evidence shows you, but don't make the claim that you learned that in scripture because it simply isn't so. Check these: Some young earth information In Him.

I wanted to add my 2 cents. I realize that the custom of wedding rings was originally a pagan custom but that doesn't mean we cannot adapt the meaning into our spiritual pilgrimage. I mean look at the Christmas Tree. I look at the wedding ring the same way that I look at Baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward relationship. Our Baptism is the public display of our personal decision to follow Christ as Saviour. Baptism does not save us. The same holds true for a wedding ring. It is an outward display of our personal relationship with our spouse, in my case, my wife. It does not make me married. If I take my ring off, I am still married. So, like Baptism, my wedding ring is an outward sign of an inward relationship. In Him.

The best I can offer to this point is two things: 1. God says that it heaven we will be happy. Pets/animals make many people happy. 2. Heaven is going to be like the Garden of Eden in many ways. There were animals in the garden. Just my two cents... In Him.

I'd like to see the Scriptural support for our memory wipe...

Miyako, Where is it written that you must have the sun to have a literal day? A literal day is defined as the passage of 24 hours. The sun is only the object that God gave us to provide light during that approximately 12 hours during which most of us engage in life. What do you in day 1 (Genesis 1:3)? Let there be light... You don't need the sun for a day and so therefore it is easy for the days to be literal 24 hour days. Besides, your hypocrisy astounds me. First you say there is no way that the days of creation are 24 hour periods of time, although it is clear from the text that it is and the Bible is clear on that. But then your defense for why we can't know if they are literal days is because the sun wasn't created until day 4 uses a literal interpretation of Scripture. Now tell me, please, which is it? If you are going to interpret Genesis 1 figuratively, that's fine with me (although I can show you differently) but if you want to be figurative, don't use a literal interpretation to tell me I am wrong. It's either all or nothing. You can't pick and choose here... In Him.

SS, I would need to a more extensive word study to determine how far this goes but the NIV uses the word 'best' to refer to the water turned to wine. I suspect that an extensive word study would show that the original Greek would show that the word that was used there meant 'best' rather than just 'good.' In Him.

Slippery, Check out Answers in Genesis Also I have given you instances where the Bible does show that God creates with apparant age. Be real, You are right about the faith issue...glad to know you are open to the understanding that God could in fact create in 6 literal days. Check out the above website for an excellent treatment on the subject. In Him.

Be Real, Let me address your question about God creating light in transit, or put another way, with apparant age. First of all, all the animals, as well as Adam and Eve, were created as adults, or with apparant age. Although they were only minutes old, they had all the functionality of mature animals and humans. And this was not deceptive but a functionality issue. There is another proof that shows God's ability to create with apparant age that many people forget. Think back to the first miracle Jesus performed. If you said that wedding at Caina, you'd be right. There he turned water to wine and the host of the party said that it was the best wine. Now anyone that knows anything about wine knows that wine gets better with age. Therefore the water turned to wine, although minutes old, was created to seem older than it was. As to the light issue, remember that God created light on day 1. He didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until day 4. They were created to sustain the light that was already there. I detect in you some of the same questions that hold most people up in believing fully that God created. I would suggest to pick up a copy of the Answers Book. You should be able to find it in your local Christian Bookstore or at the Answers in Genesis website bookstore. There is an excellent treatment of this issue and, if I recall correctly, all of your other questions. There are also a few more that would interest you that you might not think to ask. In Him.

SA, You bring up the point of why would God create things at a mature level when it served no function but the fact of the matter is that it did serve a function. It goes to survival. Anything mature obviously is going to get on better than infants. Further as to whether God can create things with apparant age look to the book of John and Jesus first miracle. At the wedding in Caina, Jesus turned the water to wine. No one disputes that the wine was young but everyone noted that the wine was the "best" of all the rest. Everyone that knows a stitch about wine knows that it gets better with age. So two things become clear 1.) God can create things with apparant age and 2.) It is done not to deceive but rather to show His glory and power. In His Grip.

Double post, sorry about that.

I just have one question for clarification: How is saying that there are other children because someone is referred to as "firstborn" defy reason? I am the firstborn of my father and mother which means that my parents had other children or else I am not technically the firstborn because there is no second. It's like when you are writing an outline. If you have a "I" you must have a "II". If you have an "A" you must have a "B", an so forth. And likewise, if you have a "firstborn" there must be a "secondborn". Please clarify.

I have three: 1. How is it that the Pope is seen as infallible and if he makes a declaration in the official format (I forget what it's called.)? Also to go along with that, if he makes a statement that is seen as infallible, how can he then change a statement that was once seen as infallible? 2. Explain for me how, at communion, the elements become Christ's body and blood given Jesus present condition. That of being alive and all. 3. Explain the apocrypha and why traditional Christianity doesn't recognize them as canon but the Catholic Church does. In His Grip.

D, Know this, any question that you ask in a sincere manner is never trouble. At least not to me. You have been hurt by people that profess to be Christians and for that I apologize. I wish there was something more that I could say to help that but know that even Christians, while forgiven, are not perfect. The main reason that Christians may seem to act the same as everyone else is because we are like everyone else except the relationship we have with Jesus. Should we act that way? No. Do we? Unfortunatly, yes. Please continue to ask your questions and I will do my best to answer them in the most understanding and helpful manner that I know of. My hope is that your perception of Christians has changed at least a little because of the people that you have encountered here. At least on some level. In His Grip.