[_ Old Earth _] Clearing something up.

[Nick]

no man could die and be raised yet barb believes that and not the creation account.

same faith.

I don't think Barb doesn't believe the creation account, but he interprets it differently. That's very different to not believing it at all.

I am an old-earth creationist. Just because I don't believe in six literal days of creation doesn't mean I don't believe the creation account.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't think Barb doesn't believe the creation account, but he interprets it differently. That's very different to not believing it at all.

I am an old-earth creationist. Just because I don't believe in six literal days of creation doesn't mean I don't believe the creation account.

evolution isnt creationism.

is god natural selection. remember logic. the entire toe violates known laws of information and also laws of statistics.

random mutations cant give us morality and i will adress that and i did address your position

and read on what the days mean.

its delineated in exodus for in six days created the heaven and earth. and on the seventh day rested. and then goes into the shabat.

imagine your moses and just hard that and never heard of science what would you think?

you would take it as he said it.

that is what i mean by proper exegisis neither added to the definition or what is sad or taking away. its that simple look we all do this. but that is the way the bible is made to be, simple read it and believe it.

theres whole debates on the end times based on such missunderstandings of the first person recipients.

if jesus spoke to the the first person who heard that and said behold you caiphas shall see me coming in the glory of the clouds.

where do we have the right to think that well jesus didnt come and do business in ad 70? and meant to say that us now?

we dont.

and barb here.

http://interlinearbible.org/2_peter/3.htm


http://concordances.org/greek/1093.htm
this is for you reading on the flood as it cant be local for to do so means the judgement is local. so where in the bible is the earths not going to be judged?the whole earth.

and also to the oecer where do you get the days arent literal by what exegisis given to account? do we look to the world to tell us what is reality or the bible first?

barb st agustine isnt the sages of that jeff spoke off. he talking about oral debates and tradiitons predating the rcc by thousands of years and christs appearence.



so god cant do that way? by what view do you justify it?

 

[jasoncran]

at barb alone. given said evolution from ape to man and said adam and eve and also protoculture

eve and adam would have known this that men die. and also what murder was and lying. how do you account them being innocent?

and given.

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life

remember he said the curse of the land was for their sake. and you position says the garden was good even though said curse was there already.

 

[Free]

evolution isnt creationism.

is god natural selection. remember logic. the entire toe violates known laws of information and also laws of statistics.

Yes, let's use logic. You are committing the same category mistake as another poster. Evolution is a mechanism, nothing more. It is quite rational and coherent to believe that God, an agent, used evolution, a mechanism, to create.

random mutations cant give us morality and i will adress that and i did address your position

This is circular. You begin by presuming that evolution precludes the existence of God and then conclude by implying that since we have morality, God must exist and evolution (via random mutations) is false.

and read on what the days mean.

its delineated in exodus for in six days created the heaven and earth. and on the seventh day rested. and then goes into the shabat.

imagine your moses and just hard that and never heard of science what would you think?

you would take it as he said it.

that is what i mean by proper exegisis neither added to the definition or what is sad or taking away. its that simple look we all do this. but that is the way the bible is made to be, simple read it and believe it.

That's a far to simplistic approach to Scripture and proper biblical exegesis. Biblical exegesis is not "just read it and believe it," it is far more involved than that. Yes, there is a certain amount we can read and understand in our native languages, but there is much, much more we could uncover if we were to look at what was written in the original languages, within the specific historical contexts in which the books of the Bible were written. In other words, we must try and understand just what it was that the authors were trying to say to their immediate audience. It is exceedingly difficult for the average lay person to do proper biblical exegesis.

Regarding the use of "day," as I have said previously, it is my understanding that it means either a literal 24-hour period of time or a period of time of undetermined length. So, in English I can read Genesis, or Exodus, and see that it says God created the earth in six days, and come to the conclusion that it was six 24-hour periods of time. That's all English allows for with the use of "day."

However, the author might have been meaning six periods of time where each period could have been millions of years. That is just as legitimate an understanding, if not more so depending on additional evidence, than to say that day is to be understood as a 24-hour period of time.

We cannot argue to Moses and how he would have understood it since we don't know.

 

[jasoncran]

well gee when the jews say and tell me that whenever you have a number in front the word yom in means ONLY a day .

not age.

do you speak hebrew? no. and so i must ask you what is a soul?

the bible says that day it means an age or period. for in the day that thou eatest the fruit thou shalt surely die.

the soul isnt some spirit as its has these three words for it and each is used.

so god was communicating ages not the word day context tells you what to intepret. thats what i mean.

the shabat was one day not one age. and one the seventh day god rested and the day was delineated. by traditon . the jew start all religous days based on the genesis account of night first then day.

and dont assume that im saying barb is lost. so i shouldn correct him?

if not then please ban me from this site im done.

and i am well aware of what the argument of theoistic evolutuonist.

so god taught man to stumble unto morals then one days says hey dont eat this or that? and then tells them they are wrong? they werent innocent by no standards then. in fact they were sinners.

and given enough time theres no proof or ability to test the the theoritical protocultures of man.

i have read an article that admits its all speculative on evolutionary psychology.

we have bones thats it now way of empiracally studying the the animals to see how they came to morals.

yet we can only observe now and what has been recorded in history on man. you do realise that if adam and eve were that first couple what does the ages of man mean?

969 years didnt really mean that? well what did it mean?

 

[jasoncran]

gee duane. i have acess to the recorded statement of jewish sages whom jeff referenced .

i intend to buy that and read and listen. their language and thoughts. so they being jews who saved their debates in the talmud or oral way as the was the whole account given to them.

that is where i get this. i have pondered for days on the hebrew way of thinking. it make sense. so i intend to look it from their way.

makes more sense when you look at what the symbols mean. and on the soul.

nephesh is used for animals
ruach is only for a man.

and one other. so if god gave only adam and eve souls care to elaborate the god actually condoned and blessed beastility?

 

[Free]

well gee when the jews say and tell me that whenever you have a number in front the word yom in means ONLY a day .

not age.

do you speak hebrew? no. and so i must ask you what is a soul?

the bible says that day it means an age or period. for in the day that thou eatest the fruit thou shalt surely die.

the soul isnt some spirit as its has these three words for it and each is used.

so god was communicating ages not the word day context tells you what to intepret. thats what i mean.

the shabat was one day not one age. and one the seventh day god rested and the day was delineated. by traditon . the jew start all religous days based on the genesis account of night first then day.

and dont assume that im saying barb is lost. so i shouldn correct him?

if not then please ban me from this site im done.


and i am well aware of what the argument of theoistic evolutuonist.

so god taught man to stumble unto morals then one days says hey dont eat this or that? and then tells them they are wrong? they werent innocent by no standards then. in fact they were sinners.

and given enough time theres no proof or ability to test the the theoritical protocultures of man.

i have read an article that admits its all speculative on evolutionary psychology.

we have bones thats it now way of empiracally studying the the animals to see how they came to morals.

yet we can only observe now and what has been recorded in history on man. you do realise that if adam and eve were that first couple what does the ages of man mean?

969 years didnt really mean that? well what did it mean?

Who is this post addressed to?

 

[jasoncran]

all. i want to know what was meant by so so lived so many years and died and based on what tradition is genesis to be one long parable.

remember any parable has such depth to it that it repeated with common typologies and so forth.

genesis has some of that but not all.

besides i can go on and on why the evolution doesnt fit in beginning with with command given to noah to eat meat if he so chooses and that the fear of man be upon animals. they would have been like that already.

god would have said that was sin first , if you notice all animals ate vegitables first.

and that is going to go back to that.

 

[Free]

well gee when the jews say and tell me that whenever you have a number in front the word yom in means ONLY a day .

not age.

do you speak hebrew? no. and so i must ask you what is a soul?

the bible says that day it means an age or period. for in the day that thou eatest the fruit thou shalt surely die.

the soul isnt some spirit as its has these three words for it and each is used.

so god was communicating ages not the word day context tells you what to intepret. thats what i mean.

the shabat was one day not one age. and one the seventh day god rested and the day was delineated. by traditon . the jew start all religous days based on the genesis account of night first then day.

It think it is important to notice that the very means by which we determine night from day, a 24-hour period of time, were not created until the fourth day.

and dont assume that im saying barb is lost. so i shouldn correct him?

I have gone through the thread and not seen where anyone has even implied such. Where do you get this from?

so god taught man to stumble unto morals then one days says hey dont eat this or that? and then tells them they are wrong? they werent innocent by no standards then. in fact they were sinners.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

969 years didnt really mean that? well what did it mean?

I don't follow. If you're asking if 969 years means 969 years, then yes, of course it means that.

 

[Jam]

evolution isnt creationism.

They are not mutually exclusive: one can believe in Creation and that God's creations then evolved according to His will.

the entire toe violates known laws of information and also laws of statistics.

It does not.

random mutations cant give us morality

Actually, it is quite plausible that random mutations and natural selection could have lead us - as a species - to have developed a sense of morality. You are right in that objective or absolute morality cannot exist without some kind of "source", but that source need not be God as we define Him. Further, most evolutionists and atheists believe in a form of subjective morality anyway. Subjective morality does not require the existence of a moral source.

and read on what the days mean.

its delineated in exodus for in six days created the heaven and earth. and on the seventh day rested. and then goes into the shabat.

imagine your moses and just hard that and never heard of science what would you think?

you would take it as he said it.

that is what i mean by proper exegisis neither added to the definition or what is sad or taking away. its that simple look we all do this. but that is the way the bible is made to be, simple read it and believe it.

But if we applied that same logic to everything in life then we would not be able to believe in anything at all that was not mentioned in the Bible! Electricity? Nope; the Bible doesn't say that! Toothpaste? Nope; the Bible doesn't say that! Atoms? Nope; the Bible doesn't say that!

Do you see the problem that you introduce here by claiming that we should not add anything to our understanding of reality but that which we come to believe through the study of scripture? As long as we do not take away from God's Word, and as long as we do not add anything and claim that it is also God's Word, we cannot reasonably be said to be contradicting the Bible.

and also to the oecer where do you get the days arent literal by what exegisis given to account? do we look to the world to tell us what is reality or the bible first?

Of course, we look to the Bible first. But, when the Bible does not comment on or specify something, then we have no reason to disbelieve what logic and our observations lead us to believe is true. Please refer back to my last paragraph.


Where do you get the idea that the days are literal? By what exegesis? Do you look to your own common sense to tell you what is reality or do you look to the Bible first?

Precisely the same argument can be made back to you.



Also, you are correct that evolutionary psychology is almost entirely speculation that is consistent with our observations... but that is evolutionary psychology, and it is totally irrelevant to whether or not evolution has taken place.

 

[stovebolts]

But ask yourself this question. If one family could be packed into one core, what would it look like?

Dead, mostly. Too many interfering genes. I can't think of any exception, except maybe in plants.

Barbarian,
Ok, like I said, you know way more about this than I do. But here's a thought. If it is true that if all that potential was packed into one core today, and it couldn't survive... then what changed?

I mean, and I don't want to sound flippant here... but I've heard evolution say that we evolved out of monkeys. Now, it is apparent that we can't mate with monkeys and monkeys can't mate with us to produce offspring. Which shows us that we are not from the same family.

So it would seem to me that Science would be looking for those changes, and would acknowledge those changes. Or, would those changes point to a core that was so packed full of potential that one family could be so diverse.

So think on this for me if you would. I don't know why any more of 4 what ever you called them can't be packed in a genetic cell, so my question, though radical might be.... What would that have had to of looked like to support such diversity? Who knows, maybe if we knew what it used to look like we'd find some solutions to cancer or something as well... I dunno.

Or is this just too radically different a thought to pursue?

 

[stovebolts]

However, the author might have been meaning six periods of time where each period could have been millions of years. That is just as legitimate an understanding, if not more so depending on additional evidence, than to say that day is to be understood as a 24-hour period of time.

We cannot argue to Moses and how he would have understood it since we don't know.

Duane,

We do know the Ancient Near Eastern thought on how the world was created, so good exegesis would support that Genesis 1 and 2 was an apologetic response to the various other creation accounts around at the time and none of the other creation accounts depicts millions or billions of years that I know of. Actually, off the top of my head they are somewhat chaotic and scattered, and I'm not even sure if they had enough logical order to them to concern themselves with a time frame because they were more concerned with telling the story of the gods warring and betrayal etc, and the blood shed of Tiamate which was mixed with the dirt from the earth to form man as slaves for the gods.

Even the Egyptians believed the sun was born every day because of the great heavenly battles that warred at night.

On that note, what we find is a very orderly account of creation which by the way agrees with Evolution in terms of the order in which life was created.

However, Evolution states that these same orderly events took millions and billions of years to happen, when scripture is clear that it took 6 literal days. Did the world look radically different at day 30 than it did at day 8? I'm sure it did just as new species are being formed in the Amazon, this world is packed full of potential and it just keeps going... one day at a time.

But lets take the Sabbath as an example. It is very clear that God wanted his people to rest on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day. This does not point to the 7th million year, and pointing to an age, or the 7th million year isn't good exegesis of Genesis 1.

 

[Barbarian]

Ok, like I said, you know way more about this than I do. But here's a thought. If it is true that if all that potential was packed into one core today, and it couldn't survive... then what changed?

Depends on what you mean by "potential." The genes and alleles for all descendants couldn't be in one organism, but if you mean that DNA has the potential to change over time to fit new circumstances, that's true.

I mean, and I don't want to sound flippant here... but I've heard evolution say that we evolved out of monkeys.

No. Monkeys are too highly evolved in different directions to have given rise to humans.

Now, it is apparent that we can't mate with monkeys and monkeys can't mate with us to produce offspring. Which shows us that we are not from the same family.

True. It's perhaps fortunate that a chromosome fusion in humans makes it impossible to produce offspring with chimps. Genetically, we are closer than many species which can interbreed, but the chromosome mismatch makes it impossible.

So it would seem to me that Science would be looking for those changes, and would acknowledge those changes. Or, would those changes point to a core that was so packed full of potential that one family could be so diverse.

As I said, All DNA has that potential. It can change over time to produce all sorts of new things.

So think on this for me if you would. I don't know why any more of 4 what ever you called them can't be packed in a genetic cell so my question, though radical might be....

We each have two sets of chromosomes. Alleles are different versions of the same gene, say for eye color. There are blue alleles and brown alleles and so on. But you can only have two of each, because you only have two chromosomes. Polyploidy (multiple sets of chromosomes) can happen in plants, but in vertebrates, it's almost invariably lethal. I know of one exception, a rodent. I meant to say that any pair of organisms can have at most, four alleles for the same gene locus. Each individual can only have 2.

What would that have had to of looked like to support such diversity?

I don't see any way it could happen.

Who knows, maybe if we knew what it used to look like we'd find some solutions to cancer or something as well... I dunno.

What you're looking for exists, but it's in the potential in DNA to change, not in having all the information already there.

Or is this just too radically different a thought to pursue?

What you're thinking of is basically wrong at the gene level, but describes potential for variation at the molecular level.

And you might consider this; evolution never produces anything new. It's always just an elaboration of existing things. But that does sometimes involve a newly-mutated gene.

And in that sense, your idea of potential for change is correct.

 

[stovebolts]

And you might consider this; evolution never produces anything new. It's always just an elaboration of existing things. But that does sometimes involve a newly-mutated gene.

And in that sense, your idea of potential for change is correct.

I'll take that as a compliment then LOL! Thanks for your patience of my lack of knowledge.

I guess what I'd like to know if it could be found, would be that gene your talking about above, before it mutated. I think that's what I was trying to get at with the example of the cats. Would that support a theory that every type, or family would have came from the same gene and each gene is assigned it's own family or type?

Thanks

 

[Free]

However, Evolution states that these same orderly events took millions and billions of years to happen, when scripture is clear that it took 6 literal days.

Well, that is precisely what is in question as it isn't clear at all whether Scripture says six literal days. In English it would seem so but digging deeper seems to reveal some ambiguity.

But lets take the Sabbath as an example. It is very clear that God wanted his people to rest on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day. This does not point to the 7th million year, and pointing to an age, or the 7th million year isn't good exegesis of Genesis 1.

This just reveals more ambiguity. When did the seventh day end for God? Technically, since he didn't create after the sixth day, it is still the seventh day. Or one could argue that Jesus' resurrection marked the end of the seventh day, the beginning of the new creation and the start of the eighth day.

Just because God says to rest on the seventh day as a parallel to the seventh day of creation, does not mean that therefore the two uses of "day" are equivalent periods of time. That isn't good exegesis.

 

[stovebolts]

However, Evolution states that these same orderly events took millions and billions of years to happen, when scripture is clear that it took 6 literal days.

Well, that is precisely what is in question as it isn't clear at all whether Scripture says six literal days. In English it would seem so but digging deeper seems to reveal some ambiguity.

Free, why was the literal 6 days of creation never really questions until the Theory of Evolution came about? I've stated this before, but Genesis 1 and 2 were not written to be an apologetic response to Evolution so when we try to use them to argue against Evolution, I can see where the ambiguity arises.

The Hebrew language is very rich and robust and to understand it, you need to shift your way of thinking or it gets even more ambiguous. With that, I'm not claiming to understand the language, but it is an observation that I've noticed.

But lets take the Sabbath as an example. It is very clear that God wanted his people to rest on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day. This does not point to the 7th million year, and pointing to an age, or the 7th million year isn't good exegesis of Genesis 1.

This just reveals more ambiguity. When did the seventh day end for God? Technically, since he didn't create after the sixth day, it is still the seventh day.

Free,
As you know, a new day began when the sun went down. Thus, the 7th day ended on sundown of day 7.

It sounds like your arguing that because God didn't create the 8th day, then the eighth day never existed :o But in a way you're right because after the Sabbath, we find ourselves right back at the first day of the week all over again. ;)

But more to your point, the creation story tells us that God empowered the earth to bring forth the trees and the flowers and the cattle and the kangaroos. We also see that God empowered the Ocean to bring forth the fishes and the sharks and the cute little star fish. Yes God created them all, but he did so by commanding that which he already created. (Earth) In other words, God created the earth with massive potential and then set it in motion.

So you see, God created the sun and the moon, and he set them in motion, just as he did the earth, land and waters. We can still clearly observe this to this very day so I don't see your point about the 8th day.

Or one could argue that Jesus' resurrection marked the end of the seventh day, the beginning of the new creation and the start of the eighth day.

You could argue that, but scripture is clear that the resurrection was marked out as being the first day of the week. A week marked out by 7 days. So to state that this would be the 8th day, you would have to say the 8th day from what? Preparation perhaps? That's just bad theology, but that's what happens when we view Jewish events with gentile eyes.

 

[stovebolts]

Just because God says to rest on the seventh day as a parallel to the seventh day of creation, does not mean that therefore the two uses of "day" are equivalent periods of time. That isn't good exegesis.

Why?

 

[Jam]

Why?

Because the premises do not entail the conclusion

How exactly is the inference logical?

 

[Barbarian]

I guess what I'd like to know if it could be found, would be that gene your talking about above, before it mutated. I think that's what I was trying to get at with the example of the cats. Would that support a theory that every type, or family would have came from the same gene and each gene is assigned it's own family or type?

That's hard. You see, we don't have the genomes of the precursors, just those of the ancestors. So we see a pretty close correspondence in genes between cats and dogs. That's because they both evolved from miacids.
http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_tapocyon.html

An even closer example would be dogs and bears, which diverged later than the divergence of cats. In all vertebrates, the homobox genes, those responsible for general body patterns, are quite similar, and I think they are interchangeable. On the other hand, more specialized genes are much less compatible, even if they are for the same things.



Thanks

 

[Free]

Free, why was the literal 6 days of creation never really questions until the Theory of Evolution came about? I've stated this before, but Genesis 1 and 2 were not written to be an apologetic response to Evolution so when we try to use them to argue against Evolution, I can see where the ambiguity arises.

I don't know whether or not the idea of six literal days were ever questioned prior to the ToE. Regardless, there should be a large amount of agreement between science and Scripture regarding beginnings. As with similar conflicts between science and theology in the past, we must be open to letting science inform us and be willing to change and correct our understanding of Scripture if necessary.

Free,
As you know, a new day began when the sun went down. Thus, the 7th day ended on sundown of day 7.

Well, and this is key, there is no mention of "day and night" or "morning and evening" for the seventh day, unlike every other day.

Gen 2:1-3, 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (ESV)


So what we have is this:

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.

Verse 5 shows that "day" is used both as "daytime," roughly a 12-hour period of time, and a 24-hour period of time. Together with Gen 2:2, we have three primary meanings of day, this latter one being without end, according to the Genesis account.

Something else I have come across recently is that nowhere in the Genesis account is it stated that these are six straight days. They could be considered six 24-hour days but days that are separated by long lengths of time. I need to read the arguments further though before I am prepared to discuss it but it does seem like a plausible reading of the text.

It sounds like your arguing that because God didn't create the 8th day, then the eighth day never existed :o But in a way you're right because after the Sabbath, we find ourselves right back at the first day of the week all over again. ;)

My point is simply that "day" can, and does, also mean an unspecified period of time, and as such, the seventh day either is continuing yet, or that the eighth day began with Jesus' resurrection, the beginning of the new creation. Don't read too much into it.

But more to your point, the creation story tells us that God empowered the earth to bring forth the trees and the flowers and the cattle and the kangaroos. We also see that God empowered the Ocean to bring forth the fishes and the sharks and the cute little star fish. Yes God created them all, but he did so by commanding that which he already created. (Earth) In other words, God created the earth with massive potential and then set it in motion.

Sure, and that is essentially no different than what the ToE states.

So you see, God created the sun and the moon, and he set them in motion, just as he did the earth, land and waters. We can still clearly observe this to this very day so I don't see your point about the 8th day.

That's okay, it was only to emphasize the length of the seventh day, which in turn throws ambiguity into the use of "day" for the other six days. And as I said to Jason, I find it significant that the sun and moon, those two heavenly bodies by which we determine a 24-hour day, were not created until the fourth day.

You could argue that, but scripture is clear that the resurrection was marked out as being the first day of the week. A week marked out by 7 days. So to state that this would be the 8th day, you would have to say the 8th day from what? Preparation perhaps? That's just bad theology, but that's what happens when we view Jewish events with gentile eyes.

Again, don't read too much into my comments about the eighth day. It has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week. It has to do with "day" meaning "age" or "era" or "unspecified period of time."