thoughts on creationism

[alphaparticle]

Praying for you parti.

Thanks, we will pray for you too alien.

[alphaparticle]

Hi Alpha,

 

In Hebrew when yom is used in connection with ordinal numbers it is always "day"  in the regular, ordinary sense.    The word "day" or "yom" can be used to refer to non-24 hour days, but the Hebrew text always indicates when it is doing that.  Hebrew is a very precise language, far more precise than English.  Phrases like, "in that day"  or "The Day of the Lord"  are ways that yom is not used to refer to  literal 24 hour days. 

 

The thing is, alpha...   WE don't get to decide when the Bible is using "yom" in a non-literal sense.   The Bible already does that for us.

 

The reason the word "day" is such a problem is that you appear to view science as the infallible standard against which the Bible must be judged.  In one sense, science is the object of your faith and you are trying to make the Bible conform to science.   You are treating science as the authority and the Bible as subordinate to it. 

 

As long as you do that, you will constantly be running into problems trying to reconcile the two.

My approach with this was to assume to that day refers to an 'ordinary day' unless the text indicated otherwise. My observation #1 on the text itself is what led to my more speculative thoughts and only at that point did I bring in any science... not vice versa.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1.

 

 Gen 1:5

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 

Here is my contention with this verse in particular. At this point, the sun and earth weren't created. In view of that, what sense can be made from a reference to 'evening' and 'morning'? And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? I believe this creates profound difficulties for the reading of 'day' to be a 24 period as measured on earth on commonsense reading grounds. I don't think this is actually possible. This isn't a problem though if I take these days to be epochs of some sort.

 

This leads me to my more speculative thought.

 

2Pe 3:8

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions.

 

Back to Genesis

 

Gen 1:4

And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

 

For an even more speculative thought, this could very meaningfully refer to recombination, the point at which atoms started to form in the universe and it became transparent, allowing for light to propagate.

 

All this leads me to think that there is no necessary issue between the Genesis account, taken very seriously, and some modern scientific theories, not necessarily anyway.

 

 

The story of Genesis has been written in a form which is both simple and complex, which together make it profound.

 

It is not possible to read Genesis carefully without discovering that it is complex.

 

One instance is what you have pointed out. The definitions that God gave to the Light and the Darkness. Which are introduced on the first day. Like you said the sun and moon had not been created, and neither had the earth appeared on the scene.

It follows that whatever God created and named in those first days, before the appearance of the earth on the third day, is something special, something He would know about, and to our wonderful surprise God mentions these elements of creation, throughout the Bible, to give us an idea of what they are and what they do in creation.

 

So far as the days are concerned, as posted by Shiloh, unless the Bible says so, the word day means day, and not an indiscriminate period. It is a word that is contextual, and if not, then on it's own just means a day, 

The Lord wrote in His law that the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, specifically because God made the earth in six days and commemorated the 7th. So it could not have been eons of time.

 

God does not need eons of time to make things, the Psalmist says "He commanded and it stood fast." Neither has God chosen to use eons of time to create.

His power is instant in the Gospel, there is no evolution in salvation, it is instant adoption to God.

 

By pushing evolution into Christianity, the world is seeking to undermine faith in the immediate power and promises of God, and the speed of the word of God, not only to create but to pardon.

 

The JW's were one of the first non christian organisations to suggest that day does not mean day, but a thousand years. The context of that text is talking about the patience of God, and not about time. Besides it is to God that time is so, and not to us. 

 

Rarely do we hear, that when God waits for our heart response, that one day is like a thousand years to Him, sadly at the same time we are quite happy to fiddle with the times in creation that diminish the image of Divinity.

 

Alright, I suppose my point here is not just that there was something special here, insofar as having 'days' delineated before the appearance of an earth/sun system, but that there is a conceptual difficult specifically with defining a morning and evening before there is an earth/sun system. The conceptual difficulty is one that seems very fundamental, possibly represents a metaphysical impossibility as it relates to concepts and definitions, and therefore doesn't just allow- but demands- a different understanding.

[Guest shiloh357]

An all knowing omnipotent God (who was the only one present at creation) doesn't need the sun to have a 24-hour day.

[alphaparticle]

An all knowing omnipotent God (who was the only one present at creation) doesn't need the sun to have a 24-hour day.

That misses the point of my argument in #1. It's that there is explicitly referred to a morning and evening, before there is an earth/sun system. Those terms, evening, morning, are *defined* in relation to sunrise and sunset. I cannot make sense of this before there is any earth, planet, or star at all created.

[Guest Teditis]

How does it "demand" a different understanding?

I do understand that it's difficult to conceptualize but God

could have been that Light... as He is referenced as such

in other scriptures. The fact remains that there was night and

day before verse 14... to draw much else from those texts is

speculative thinking.

[alphaparticle]

How does it "demand" a different understanding?

I do understand that it's difficult to conceptualize but God

could have been that Light... as He is referenced as such

in other scriptures. The fact remains that there was night and

day before verse 14... to draw much else from those texts is

speculative thinking.

Sure, but I assert it is just as speculative to say these were ordinary 24 hr periods when the days were defined, in these verses, with relation to an evening and morning which clearly could not have occurred. I don't see the demand to see these as 24 hr periods given those circumstances as any more 'literal' or 'commonsensical' than my speculation given the actual context.

[Guest Teditis]

Except that the cycle of morning and evening kinda'

imply the 24-cycle... as does the remaining account

when He got to the 7th day and made it the Sabbath

day... which was then held Holy ever since.

[alphaparticle]

Except that the cycle of morning and evening kinda'

imply the 24-cycle... as does the remaining account

when He got to the 7th day and made it the Sabbath

day... which was then held Holy ever since.

No, they don't. They imply nothing clear when those terms are referenced before there is any morning or evening anywhere. This is why I don't understand the insistence that a clear and simple reading leads to 6 24 hr days. I am stopped at day 1 wondering how this is an 'obvious' reading.

[Guest Teditis]

I guess I'm missing something because in verse 5 it says

that there was Morning and Evening... night and day.

There just wasn't (apparently) a Sun and Moon.

 

So there is implication in my little brain that the 24-hour

cycle was there even if the Sun and Moon were not.