OEC and ID

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

Alpha...don't muddy the waters here.  The Jonah and Jericho references were used as an example of "nobody is questioning those days"

 

EXODUS 20:11 is THE BIG DADDY.....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Is there ANY MORE CLEAR WAY GOD could have said it ????!!!!

 

Now, I don't think any person can give a YES answer to that question without compromising their Integrity....Intellectually or otherwise.

 

I'm not muddying the waters at all. In Gen 1 the days are defined by morning and evenings *before the sun was created*. Given that circumstance, I do not think you can naively assume that these are 24 hr periods, as 24 hr periods are contingent on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. I have to say, I am not convinced.

 

ALPHA......

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

 

 

What's left so say Sir

 

??????

 

 

I do not think you can naively assume a 24 hr day applies conceptually to a time before the sun exists when 24 hr days, mornings and evenings are *defined by* the earth-sun system. 'Day' could very well mean something else when applied to that era.. and maybe should.

 

I already did addressed your concerns but you didn't answer the simple question. 

 

I will end this....Valentine's Day Dinner with the Misses

 

 

Let me add one final thought:  Don't miss the Forrest through the Trees Sir

 

What question did I miss? I don't think I'm fixating on an irrelevant detail in this case. Since are talking about the ultimate origins, including of the earth-sun system and days/evenings/mornings, this seems legit to me.

 

Enjoy your time.

 

 

 

=================================================================================================

 

 

What question did I miss?

 

Sorry missed this:

 

This one....

 

EXODUS 20:11 is THE BIG DADDY.....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

*Special Note*--  GOD wrote this HIMSELF with HIS FINGER in........ STONE!!

 

 

----------->>>>>>>    Is there ANY MORE CLEAR WAY GOD could have said it ????!!!!     <<<<<<<<<-----------------

 

Now, I don't think any person can give a YES answer to that question without compromising their Integrity....Intellectually or otherwise.

 

Ah yes, I did answer that question. That's a reference to the Genesis account and I don't think it makes sense to assign a 24 hr period, evenings and mornings, to a time before there was an earth-sun system. In other words, I don't think this answers my question about this at all.

 

 

With all due respect Sir...........

[ARGOSY]

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day  evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life.

Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this.

I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location.

3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility

4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day)

5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed

I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view)

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

That is a good point.  But God says in both Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 that He created the heavens and earth in six days.   How would the original audience at Mt. Sinai have understood those comments?  

 

There was only one eyewitness to creation and He doesn't make mistakes and never misspeaks.  So when He says He made the heavens and earth in six days, is He, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, hamstrung by the fact that there was no sun by which to mark off a "day" as we know it?  There was darkness and light, as well as morning and evening; so there were modifers in the text that tell us what "day" meant.  Again, that is how "literal" works.  You let the text speak for itself.

Well, I disagree.

 

And I know you have the Hebrew knowledge under your belt to prove your point, but I have heard from two different rabbis that the text does not have to be interpreted as 6 24-hour days, and both offered their different explanations for how to reconcile what the Bible says with what the science says (and vice versa).

 

So who is more correct?

 

Well, you know the old joke - give 10 Jews a topic to discuss and hear 11 different opinions.

 

Which Rabbis?    What precisely were their explanations and were their explanations pertaining to Genesis 1, or Exodus 20:11 & 31:17?

 

Knowing Hebrew and performing good exegesis are not the same thing.  It's just knowing the Hebrew. It's about knowing how to handle the text both exegetically and theologically.

 

Bump.  Never got a response from Nebula to the questions.  At least not that I could find.

[OneLight]

I spent a lot of time reading through and cleaning up the last few pages.  Any more personal insults and the member who posted it will be banned from the thread.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day  evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life.

 

Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this.

 

I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location.

3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility

4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day)

5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed

I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view)

 

I'll give this some thought. Let me lob this at you and see what you think. If I take the view you are suggesting, which as I understand it is the formation of something like the surface of the earth from the point of view of things happening on the earth, is it possible that the bulk of the earth itself had been previously around for a long time and was being re-formed? I suppose I know you are OEC so I am curious to see how you fit this all together also.

 

I might also wonder though, if it is possible to see this as from the earth's point of view as stuff is being formed, who is to say that God didn't bring forth animals already previously evolved? We have God 'presenting' the lights that govern day and night to the earth, if I understand you correctly, by changing the earth's atmosphere so that the sun and moon can be seen from the surface. What if something analogous could happen with biological life? I admit that is more of a stretch interpretively in that they aren't being formed out of nothing on those literal days, but at the outset I might think it's plausible alternative to look at.

[gray wolf]

Wow

[Guest shiloh357]

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

 

 

Actually the different Hebrew words are used interchangably, so there is no real difference.

[alphaparticle]

Wow

?

[ARGOSY]

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day  evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life.

Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this.

I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location.

3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility

4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day)

5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed

I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view)

I'll give this some thought. Let me lob this at you and see what you think. If I take the view you are suggesting, which as I understand it is the formation of something like the surface of the earth from the point of view of things happening on the earth, is it possible that the bulk of the earth itself had been previously around for a long time and was being re-formed? I suppose I know you are OEC so I am curious to see how you fit this all together also.

 

I might also wonder though, if it is possible to see this as from the earth's point of view as stuff is being formed, who is to say that God didn't bring forth animals already previously evolved? We have God 'presenting' the lights that govern day and night to the earth, if I understand you correctly, by changing the earth's atmosphere so that the sun and moon can be seen from the surface. What if something analogous could happen with biological life? I admit that is more of a stretch interpretively in that they aren't being formed out of nothing on those literal days, but at the outset I might think it's plausible alternative to look at.

Once again good points, regarding biological life I am a bible literalist and try to stay as faithful to the Hebrew as possible. The word "created" is not used for the light/s in the sky, yet it is used for the land, and the sky in verse 1 and also the creation of biological life. I believe if the bible says these were created in 24 hour days, this is what we are to believe. If I found anything in DNA, geology to contradict this maybe I would have another look at the bible meaning, but I don't see any part of science that favors the mainstream scientific position over the biblical scientific position. 6 literal days, this is when biological life was created.

Regarding the bulk of earth being around and being re-formed, this is possible, God could have been doing many interesting things in the universe and this planet for billions of years before creation week started. The story of creation week is mankinds story, the story of our origins. The angels must have their story too, maybe there's a "book of angels" in heaven, a story of why and how God created them, where they were created, describing the first angel. The possibilities are endless but we are to be concerned with man's story, here on planet earth. I personally see no evidence of any other activity here on earth, I regard this planet as set aside for mankind's story, although the bible does not actually say that. To me the paleozoic world with its 35% oxygen and misty environment was perfect for the long life-spans of the bible times, and the great death of history (PT boundary) matches the great death of the bible (flood) and have no reason to suspect a pre-Genesis world that needed to be re-formed. I believe it formed once, referring to geology.

Hope my waffling answered your questions.

Edited February 17, 2014 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s

Actually the different Hebrew words are used interchangably, so there is no real difference.

Yes for some aspects of creation week they are used interchangeably, but regarding specifically the light, the sun, the moon, and the stars the word "bara" which means to create, is not used. Yet this word is often used regarding biological life.

ie during creation week God produced many things for mankind. He produced biological life through creating life. He produced light and lights in the sky through making them visible through the thick watery atmosphere. And so Genesis 1 freely uses the word "produced/observed" for all creation, and yet limits the word "bara" (create) to those things that did not exist before (dry land, the expanse in the sky, biological life).