Creation???

[Fraught]

i was a fervent young-earther until . . . . the sun and stars and the moon didn't appear until the 4th 'day'. clearly, 'day' equals 'age'.

secondly, God is obviously still creating NOW, in what i believe the be the 6th 'day', and we are to be zealous to enter God's rest, the 7th 'day'.

Scripture is clear that the evening and the morning were the 6th day, then it goes right into the 7th day. Your view is not scriptural.

Disagree.

[Fraught]

i was a fervent young-earther until . . . . the sun and stars and the moon didn't appear until the 4th 'day'. clearly, 'day' equals 'age'.

secondly, God is obviously still creating NOW, in what i believe the be the 6th 'day', and we are to be zealous to enter God's rest, the 7th 'day'.

Scripture is clear that the evening and the morning were the 6th day, then it goes right into the 7th day. Your view is not scriptural.

Just as a matter of interest did you read my responses regarding pain and suffering before the fall? If not please read those...

Also, I have a few questions. I assume, based on your response that you are a YEC. How can you explain the fact that the Word of the Lord has been proclaimed to 1,000 generations (about 40,000 years at the very least - more if you account for the long lives found early in the Bible)?

What do you see 'the evening & the morning' to mean?

I have been taught that night is a time of darkness, i.e. lack of knowledge of the the Truth of God, morning, a time of Light or the knowledge of the Glory of God.

[nebula]

I have been taught that night is a time of darkness, i.e. lack of knowledge of the the Truth of God, morning, a time of Light or the knowledge of the Glory of God.

That does make sense if you read the account from the symbolic perspective. Cool!

[~candice~]

i was a fervent young-earther until . . . . the sun and stars and the moon didn't appear until the 4th 'day'. clearly, 'day' equals 'age'.

secondly, God is obviously still creating NOW, in what i believe the be the 6th 'day', and we are to be zealous to enter God's rest, the 7th 'day'.

Scripture is clear that the evening and the morning were the 6th day, then it goes right into the 7th day. Your view is not scriptural.

Just as a matter of interest did you read my responses regarding pain and suffering before the fall? If not please read those...

Also, I have a few questions. I assume, based on your response that you are a YEC. How can you explain the fact that the Word of the Lord has been proclaimed to 1,000 generations (about 40,000 years at the very least - more if you account for the long lives found early in the Bible)?

What do you see 'the evening & the morning' to mean?

I have been taught that night is a time of darkness, i.e. lack of knowledge of the the Truth of God, morning, a time of Light or the knowledge of the Glory of God.

OK I don't get this... how is knowledge of God coming and going 6 times?

[nebula]

I have been taught that night is a time of darkness, i.e. lack of knowledge of the the Truth of God, morning, a time of Light or the knowledge of the Glory of God.

OK I don't get this... how is knowledge of God coming and going 6 times?

Different stages, different levels, different aspects -

First from darkness to light

Second from "water" being all the same to being separated into above and below (just need to better figure what "water" symbolizes)

Third from the land covered with water to the land being separated from the water (the people of God being called and set apart, and producing fruit)

Etc.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OK let me clarify something though. I'm not saying YEC is wrong, and I'm not suggesting that we abandon YEC in favour of a metaphorical allegorical interpretation of Genesis. I'm saying that it is BOTH historical and spiritual in it's content and we shouldn't abandon either. However, it's really not scientific in nature, beyond saying that God is the cause. So I think we should focus on the emphasis that God has given us, which is far far more spiritual than it is scientific, and not try and make a scientific emphasis out of something that is largely historical / spiritual (far far more spiritual though). HTH.

The thing is that I agree with you. I'm not trying to make it a scientific account, but an historical one in which there is profound spriitual significance.

That's why I don't really care what the light was, or anything, just that if it says it happened this way and it was morning and evening the first day, then OK it happened that way and it was morning and evening the first day.

But anyways, I'm ducking out of this conversation now so I'll see ya'll on another thread soon, I'm sure.

[Guest shiloh357]

ByFaithAlone wrote:That still leaves hundreds of thousands if not millions of families. It does seem unlikely that every species of dog and horse existed but at the same time it seems unlikely that such diversity evolved in 6000 years since the YEC. Evolution generally takes much longer... even if it is microevolution.

I used to spend a lot of time on a farm and I have seen how fast animals procreate and how fast an animal population can grow. You can start off with just a few sheep and have hundreds with in a few short years.

Agreed. But that would be the same species.

Yes, but new species don't merely show up through microevolution. You can instantly creating new species through breeding and those populations grow quickly. Animals reproduce at a much faster rate than humans. Microevolution involves small adapatations and mutation in a species withinn just a few generations, not millions of years.

I don't have to accept evolution. I don't believe that Evolution took place.

That's interesting. We know that millions of families of animals exist in the fossil record. You only believe that about 5000 of them existed at creation. Without evolution or Old Earth Creationism (OEC) I don't see how you can get those millions of other families. Do you?

You appear to be working from the assumption that all of what appears in the fossil record MUST have existed at the moment of creation. That may not be an accurate assumption. And furthermore, there would not be "millions" families, but rather milllions of speciies belonging to a more broader group of families or as the Bible calls it "kind." Animals mate within their kind. Cattle do not mate with dogs. Cats do not mate with Rabbits. Pigs do not mate with sheep. Birds and fish are different. Birds mate only within their species. Cardinals do not mate with Crows or Bluejays.

A more reasonable way to look at this is that Adam named animals according to their kind, not according to species.

True, are you saying that God did not create them, or that they somehow evolved (or devolved) from more complex creatures like "the beasts of the fields?"

No I am saying that Adam only named certain creatures that God brought to him. He did not name every living thing and when you go by what the Lord brought to him to name, only a few thousand familes of creatures would not take but a few hours to name.

Ok. I see what you are saying. Unfortunately Adam names every living creature (ne·p̄eš) according to the translations I see below...

There were three categories of creatures that were brought to Adam. Adam named those. He did not name all of the fish or the marine life or the insects. He named "every living creature" within the scope of "the beasts of the field, cattle and the birds of the air. It does not say he named the fish or the insects or amphipian/marine life. That cuts out the millions of species you claim had to name.

Regardless, beasts of the fields and birds of the air still have tens of thousands of families, especially considering that beasts was actually added to the Hebrew to make it flow. All it says is that the animals are (הַשָּׂדֶה֙ - of the field). This in itself is open to large debate. I would personally classify grasshoppers, locusts, a number of beetles, a few true bugs, several pollinators, etc as "of the field."

Also, you were talking earlier about hyper-literalization of the text... I smell a bit of hypocrisy here...

No hypocrisy at all. I am not opting for hyper-literalization. I simply choose to believe the Bible as it is written instead of trying to force something on to the text that is not there. To argue that insects can be counted as "beasts" of the field is highly absurd. The word for "beast" is nephesh and only every refers to lower animals and man in various ways. It never refers to grasshoppers, locusts or bugs.

[Guest shiloh357]

See above. Again, add to the millions of species today the approximately 100 million we know existed by the fossil record. It does make sense that Adam named the tens of thousands birds of the air and animals of the fields in a day, even going at record speeds.

Again, the fossil record does not tell you what existed in creation. There thousands of species of birds, but not thousands of families. You have birds of prey, song birds, water fowl, etc. When start getting into biblical "kinds" the list of how many names had to be given dwindles down signifcantly. Adam did not name goldfinches, cardinals and very type of sparrow. "Kinds" are broad categories. Stop trying to make the Bible say what it isn't saying.

Even if you take 5000 families, it seems highly unlikely that they evolved in such a way as to create millions in just a few thousand years. Do you have any proof that this could have happened or is this merely speculation that flies in the face of science?

Evolution is not science.

Ironically, I think evolution is the only way you could prove that your 5000 species, you claim existed at creation (based on your invisible evidence I might add...) became the hundreds of thousands we see in the fossil record...

I said 5,000 families not species. Evolution is not the only explanation for the increasing number of species.

Breeding and the development of new species does not take millions and millions of years.

We're not talking about a new species... We're talking about new families.

It's like transforming an ant (Formicidae - spelling?) into an Ichnuemon Wasp (Ichnuemidae - spelling?). If you don't believe in evolution, you're stuck at this point. Additionally, even if you accept evolution, you would be forced to admit that this process would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to complete.

No, YOU are talking about new species. You appear to be under the assumption that everything we see today and in the fossil record was part of the created event in Genesis, and I am not convinced of that.

Noah was told to collect two of each "kind" of living creature, male and female. The Bible uses that broad terminology. Noah did not have to bring two of every species as is erroneously assumed by many. Noah did not have to bring two of every species of cat. He just needed two cats. He did not have to bring every species of dog. He just needed two dogs, and so forth. And from those two parent creatures comes every species of dog or cat we have today. We simply assume that God created lions, tigers, panthers, domestic cats and all of the species of cats we see today. It is quite possible that many of the species that we see today did not exist pre-flood, and are the result of the breeding of the two cats that came off of the ark. There would not have been as many animals in the ark as many people assume if that is true. What God created were the parent breeds from which all other species and breeds come from. He did not directly create all that appears in the fossil record. Millions of those creatures like mollusks and sponges and tadpoles and other marine life were not included in that list anyway.

[TheNewMan]

The creation passage in Genesis says that each day was divided into morning and evening. If the creation took millions (or even billions) of years, then the mornings would have each lasted a few hundred million years, and all the vegetation on the earth would have burned up in the morning, and would have frozen during the evening of each day. There's no possible way that life could have been sustained through daylight that lasted for millions of years, and nighttime that lasted for millions of years.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Greetings,

Did you know that there are two accounts of Noah's flood in the Bible?

There's the one in Genesis and the one in 2 Peter Chapter 2 that affirms the literal historicity of the one in Genesis.

They are intertwined and one account is for the nations or the unclean man who only know Him as "God" shown by the raven.

That's untenable speculation. I could say that the raven was actually a Nordic Valerie and the flood was the creation of middle earth and from that point on all the dead were trafficked to Valhalla, but that would just be reading other superstitions into the text too, so I don’t do so.

And the other is for the chosen of God who know Him as "LORD" because they follow Him as their authority in LIFE and that is the account of the dove.

And what is the book, chapter and verse that makes that explicit?

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).

God made us in different ethnics for diversity

No, He really didn't. He made Adam and Eve. Eve is the mother of all human life (Gen. 3:20).

We all come from the same two individuals and more recently from Noah and the seven passengers ark. God didn't make us in different ethnicities. That's racism.

and I do believe that there were two of every nationality upon the ark with Noah and his family.

All people are capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring. Nationality is a designation of nation from which one hails: it's a cultural designation not a genealogical designation.

By the different 'ethnics', as you call them, I can only assume you're referring to skin tone, which are simply differences in the quantity and expression of the chemical melanin among individuals. Since all humans can breed with other humans, these quantities are simply more highly concentrated among some groups due to a lack of historical drift in certain geographical areas, which we see starting to change today as there's more blending across cultures.

We all have a common origin.

God does not give the unclean man a name for He does not know them PERSONALLY as in first name basis, for they choose not to know Him.

Look, we can all make up stories, but this unsubstantiated fiction has no place in a forum of discussion on truth.

As for the animals being made out of only two, I do not believe that,

I've heard this kind of thing before: "Did God really say...?" (Gen. 3:1).

for God is a CREATOR and I see no reason that He would ever stop expanding on His creation.

Not even if the reason is that He said He did? "... the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works" (Hebrews 4:3-4).

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work" (Gen. 2:2).

What you're doing here is the heresy of Gnosticism - which assumes some specially delivered knowledge about the text that's not garnered from the text but from special, personal revelation or something.

It's false and you're teaching something to the effect of racist heresy.