young creation?

[Guest melo]

The word for "day", "yom", is also used to refer to the entire creation period. It cannot mean a 24-hour period exclusively. We have been WAY too hung up on the literal 24-hour period notion, to our embarrassment and discredit.

To say this is to say that people's faith in God and that He is certainly powerful enough to have completed creation (by the power of His word, not time, by the way) in 6 days...is an embarrassment and discredits them and Christianity in some way. That is wrong. We might take a lesson from Job who, when God challenged him about His creation, Job just shut up, realizing that He didn't know much at all...just like we don't.

Exodus 20:11"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."

Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

The whole Sabbath was built upon the 6 day creation follwed by one day of rest. It is a very prominent them in the OT. To say of someones faith is an embarassment or is discredited because they believe that God not only could (because He is able), but did (because He said He did) create all things in 6 days is errant.

**and still no old earth creationist has answered my question**

Blessings,

PC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Six yom = what exactly? Take another look at the issue. The issue of our faith in God and His power isn't the issue. Our faith in lightfoot (the bishop who tried to put creation's date at 6006 BC) is. BTW, what was your question?

[Guest Amazed of Grace]

So, what determines when "yom" is meant to convey a literal 24-hour period and when it refers to another period?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Context or presupposition?

BTW...good observation and good post PC. Got my wheels to turning even more.

[Guest melo]

So, what determines when "yom" is meant to convey a literal 24-hour period and when it refers to another period?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Context or presupposition?

BTW...good observation and good post PC. Got my wheels to turning even more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Presupposition goes both ways. To repeat: it is NOT an issue of DID God make the world, rather it is how long did it take? We don't know, but I would argue that the best evidence suggests the world is very old. Context of the word "yom" would be things like it referring to a harvest peiod or whatever it referred to. Crosswalk.com has a word search function you could use if you are interested.

[Guest Amazed of Grace]

Agreed.

It is a fascinating idea from either perspective.

Too bad God did not leave a book behind like Victor's father in "Young Frankenstein"

"How I did it."

[Purple Chris]

Hello Melo,

You wrote...

The word for "day", "yom", is also used to refer to the entire creation period. It cannot mean a 24-hour period exclusively. We have been WAY too hung up on the literal 24-hour period notion, to our embarrassment and discredit.

...the way it reads to me is that you are saying that being "hung up" on the "notion" that day means a literal 24-hour period, is an embarassment and is discredits us. It sounds to me as if you are saying that it obviously can't be 24 hours and for us to hold to that causes embarassment to our faith and discredits Christianity. Is that what you meant?

BTW, what was your question?

It was this...

Question for old earth creationists out there...not one of judgement, but of curiosity.

Adam and Eve were created on day 6. Their third son Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. He was born after Cain killed Abel. The Fall also happened between day 6 and Seth being born. So day 6 could not have been an undetermined amount of time, even assuming we start at year 0 when Adam was created (even though we assume he was not created as an infant, but as a man). It is fair to say that day 6 could be at the most, maybe 110 years or so. [This does not lend support to the days being hundreds or thousands or millions of years in length]

Also...

Besides, 'Six literal days'? Literal days didn't even exist until the sun was made- as you pointed out, already quite a way into the week.

The sun is not required to have a period of time be a day. There was already light and darkness in existence from day 1 and the days are divided by morning (light) and evening (darkness) and clearly not dependent on the sun existing.

Now my question...as old earthers say (at least all that I've heard) say that the 6 days, as well as other aspects of creation, are not literal, but figurative...at what point in Genesis do/can we start reading Genesis literally?

Thanks,

PC

To repeat: it is NOT an issue of DID God make the world, rather it is how long did it take? We don't know

We do know...it was 6 days according to God's word. What is being argued as not known is how long those days are.

but I would argue that the best evidence suggests the world is very old.

Are you speaking of evidence outside of Scripture? Because the only evidence I see in Scripture suggests that the 6 days were 6 days and not 6 indefinite periods of time.

God defines "yom" for us within the context of Genesis 1 by the "morning and evening" clauses. When "yom" is used to speak about a period, age or era...a length of days, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is defined in this way as "days" that are outlined by "morning and evening."

Blessings,

Purp

[Guest melo]

Hello Melo,

You wrote...

The word for "day", "yom", is also used to refer to the entire creation period. It cannot mean a 24-hour period exclusively. We have been WAY too hung up on the literal 24-hour period notion, to our embarrassment and discredit.

...the way it reads to me is that you are saying that being "hung up" on the "notion" that day means a literal 24-hour period, is an embarassment and is discredits us. It sounds to me as if you are saying that it obviously can't be 24 hours and for us to hold to that causes embarassment to our faith and discredits Christianity. Is that what you meant?

No, I am saying that an unyielding and inflexible assertion that it had to have been six 24-hour periods, and the degree to which some people are frothy and furious about anyone who challenges this as though it were dogma (not meaning anyone is this chatroom I have encountered thus far, but believe me , I have encountered them). Dogma we all agree with: God made the world in a finite period of time. Not dogma: how long did it take. I have met Christians who assume you cannot love the Lord unless you buy into the 24-hour bit.

BTW, what was your question?

It was this...

Question for old earth creationists out there...not one of judgement, but of curiosity.

Adam and Eve were created on day 6. Their third son Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. He was born after Cain killed Abel. The Fall also happened between day 6 and Seth being born. So day 6 could not have been an undetermined amount of time, even assuming we start at year 0 when Adam was created (even though we assume he was not created as an infant, but as a man). It is fair to say that day 6 could be at the most, maybe 110 years or so. [This does not lend support to the days being hundreds or thousands or millions of years in length]

To address the two assuptions in your question: First of all the whole point was that a yom is a finite, or definite period of time, not indefinite.  It has a beginning and end.  Secondly the fall happened during day 7, which I would argue continues to this day.

Also...

Besides, 'Six literal days'? Literal days didn't even exist until the sun was made- as you pointed out, already quite a way into the week.

The sun is not required to have a period of time be a day. There was already light and darkness in existence from day 1 and the days are divided by morning (light) and evening (darkness) and clearly not dependent on the sun existing.

Now my question...as old earthers say (at least all that I've heard) say that the 6 days, as well as other aspects of creation, are not literal, but figurative...at what point in Genesis do/can we start reading Genesis literally?

Not exactly figurative, but rather specific epochs, discrete, albeit long, periods of time. Time periods with a beginning and an end, each with a specific set of events.

Thanks,

PC

To repeat: it is NOT an issue of DID God make the world, rather it is how long did it take? We don't know

We do know...it was 6 days according to God's word. What is being argued as not known is how long those days are.

I thought that was obvious. Yes, six "yom".

but I would argue that the best evidence suggests the world is very old.

Are you speaking of evidence outside of Scripture? Because the only evidence I see in Scripture suggests that the 6 days were 6 days and not 6 indefinite periods of time.

Again, definite periods of time. Long does NOT mean indefinite.

God defines "yom" for us within the context of Genesis 1 by the "morning and evening" clauses. When "yom" is used to speak about a period, age or era...a length of days, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is defined in this way as "days" that are outlined by "morning and evening."

Here is one example of the Hebrew word "boquer", or "morning" used in Genesis in which it means something other than "at sunrise": "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Gen 49:27. It is used here to refer to the beginning of something.

Blessings,

Purp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Purple Chris]

Greetings melo,

At first I didn't think you actually posted anything, but then I noticed it mixed in with other stuff. Kind of hard to distinguish your answers in there.

Thanks for explaining what you meant by that post, I appreciate that. It had sounded bad when I first read it and did not want to misunderstand you.

The Scriptural context still lends itself to a 24 hour day. Genesis 49:27 does not bear on Genesis 1 as "yom" is not used there. The "day" in Genesis is clearly marked out contextually by morning and evening.

The fall most likely occurred after 7, not on 7, and was a one time event, which the effects of are still ongoing today.

The time between day 6 and Seth being born (when Adam was 130 years old) is determinable to a degree if the Scriptures are taken literally. My question to old earthers who hold that Genesis 1 IS figurative (which I don't think you do), is at what point and how it is that they determine that Genesis stops being figurative and becomes literal. One answer as to "when" is "around the time of the Patriarchs" but no reason as to why then.

Blessings,

PC

[Bread_of_Life]

The former foglight, the former. I believe our friends above are desperately trying to marry that physical fact with their faith and belief in the bible. With varying degrees of success.

[Guest melo]

Light in transit... Apparent age? Sounds like deceit to me. Why would god be deceitful?

"Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, 'Where have I gone wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more than one night.'."

-Charlie Brown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, either the Earth is very old or was made to look that way. It is not in God's nature to deceive. I am convinced that the Earth is very old, and that belief does not fly in the face of scripture. It is not a stretch, or a feeble attempt to make the Bible fit scientific evidence, but it does oppose what most other Christians would say. I believe the Earth's is something around 4.5 Billion years old.

The whole young Earth thing got started with a catholic Bishop named Lightfoot, who used literal days to calculate the actual date of creation, leading him to the figure of 6006 BC. This was later added to the KJV Bible, assuming it to be fact. He was only off by 4.4 Billion years, give or take 100,000.

The debate got heated when Darwinism was taught in school, and the debate became quickly and intensely polarized. Either you're with us or you're not, there was no middle ground. Either you were among God's faithful who believed in a literal 6-day creation period, or you were pigeonholed as a nominal Christian at best, a worldy convert, or an unbeliever.

Fundamentalism hasn't helped either. During the 1800s to the present a lot of Christian cults and borderline groups sprang up. Among them were the Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists, et al. At this time a couple of well-meaning pastors set out to write a brief treatise on exactly what were the basics, or fundamentals, of Christianity. Things like Jesus is God, the sinfulness of man, etc, were listed. They did not list belief in a literal 6-day creation period as a fundamental, only that belief in God as Creator was a fundamental. It was later that others took the fundamentalist movement, added a 6-day clause to it, and used it as a club against Christians who did not belive in a 6-day period of creation.

So where does that leave us? Either you believe in a 6-day creation period, or you are an evolutionist and unbeliever? Christendom needs to revisit this issue, and accept the fact that science is not our enemy.

OK, requote away. BTW, I have a graduate degree in molecular biology, and I think the greatest proof by far against the spontaneous origin of life is the living cell. It is so complicated that it would take volumes to explain everything I would like to say about it. One of my life goals is to make a computer graphic video showing the complexity of the living cell, and use it as evidence for a Creator/Designer of life.

[Lekcit]

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.