Creation and an Old Earth - One Possibility

[Vendtre]

21 minutes ago, Teditis said:

Touché.

Still, to draw anything other than 7, 24-hour cycles, is either poor reading comprehension or

simple stubbornness, imo. More likely stubbornness since it's been traditionally understood

as 24-hour periods for a long, long time... understood by young and old.

It's just people who take Star Trek and the like too seriously and want to look acceptable to

main-stream science-types who try to stretch out the timeline to include such silly notions

as the Gap Theory, evolution and ToE.

That was impressive, 6 strawmen in one post!  Well done.  

I think the most basic, clear reading of Genesis 1 and 2 does not lead one to a 24 hour day.  The meaning of Genesis 1 has been debated for 2000 plus years.  

Assuming it is true because of the numbers that believe it is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Popularity.   Sadly the majority are often wrong.

[Guest Teditis]

And Gnostics like you see everything clearly?

And get back to reading up on your Logic... there are no 6 strawmen.

An appeal to popularity is warranted when it's the mainstream "literal-reading"...

supported by examination... as opposed to theories which have become popular opinion.

 

[Vendtre]

17 minutes ago, Teditis said:

And Gnostics like you see everything clearly?

And get back to reading up on your Logic... there are no 6 strawmen.

An appeal to popularity is warranted when it's the mainstream "literal-reading"...

supported by examination... as opposed to theories which have become popular opinion.

 

I was taught from about age 3 in VBS that the days were 24 hours and took it at face value for 20 years till I read it on my own, setting aside preconceived biases. 

Then it was so painfully obvious not talking about 140ish hours.  At that point I stated to investigate if others thought this way.  What I found was a debate that went back 2000 years or more.  I was surprised by this and even more surprised how very few knew about it and how upset church leaders got when you questioned it.  

[enoob57]

50 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

I think all that happens in Chapter 3,not 2.

Thought needs to be aligned with God's Word .... all else is meaningless drivel...

[Vendtre]

7 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Thought needs to be aligned with God's Word .... all else is meaningless drivel...

Ok...in God's word the events you listed above take place in Genesis 3, not 2.  

Is that better.

[junobet]

1 hour ago, Teditis said:

Touché.

Still, to draw anything other than 7, 24-hour cycles, is either poor reading comprehension or

simple stubbornness, imo. More likely stubbornness since it's been traditionally understood

as 24-hour periods for a long, long time... understood by young and old.

It's just people who take Star Trek and the like too seriously and want to look acceptable to

main-stream science-types who try to stretch out the timeline to include such silly notions

as the Gap Theory, evolution and ToE.

Sorry, but what tradition are you talking about? In Galatians 4:22-24 even Paul declares that Genesis is to be read allegorically. And  Augustine, arguably the most influential theologian in Western theology  certainly did not think that Genesis literally means 7/24/h days. He famously declared that God created everything in one instant. So traditionally most Christians to this very day will think of creation as “ex nihilo” and of  Genesis  as allegorical.

Love,

junobet

[junobet]

31 minutes ago, Davida said:

Paul never stated that 'Genesis " was to be read allegorically . He was speaking in this verse allegorically concerning Hagar being the mother of Ismael and Issac being born through the mother of promise through Sarah. Galations 4:22-24  

Sorry, I should have been more precise: Paul calls a story stretching from Genesis 16-(…)-21 an allegory. What makes you think that Paul would have read Genesis 1-2 literally like a creationist does? The earliest Christian commentaries on Genesis certainly didn’t read those chapters literally. Actually in his commentary on Genesis Augustine explicitly warns us of such folly:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

(…) If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

http://www.christianmind.org/history/Augustine1.htm

 

[hmbld]

14 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I don't see how you can say "everything created in 6 days" when the watery planet clearly existed before the first day, and only the "Dry land" was created in day 3?

The bible says nothing about "planet earth" being created within those 6 days.  

Exodus 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

And?

[Vendtre]

19 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Exodus 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

And?

19 minutes ago, hmbld said:

 

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Vendtre

[Vendtre]

In Exodus 20, the 7th day is not 24 hours, why should I then assume the first 6 are?  What sense does that make?