[_ Old Earth _] In Six Days

[Free Christian]

Hi everyone. I have started reading a book titled "In Six Days" Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. The website for the publishers is www.masterbooks.net What a great read. It is full of testimonies from the scientists on why they believe in creation and the young earth and all of their proofs are fantastic. I was going to put this thread in the books one but thought it might be better seen here for those interested. Well worth checking out! I really liked the one by James S Allen a geneticist and his part about population and how it is impossible that there could have been all the mutations that supposedly took place over generations up to where we are now. Saying there would have had to have been 150,000,000,000 forerunners of modern man from the, we are told, small groups of cave dwelling Australopithicenes. Amazing stuff.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's check his assumption.

Humans have about 30,000 genes. Chimps have about the same.

Depending how you figure it, Humans and chimps are 92% to 97% similar to humans genetically. Let's say 90% to be conservative. So about 3,000 genes different. Divide by half, (because both humans and chimps have been evolving, and that difference is ours plus theirs) and we get 1,500 genes.

Every human has a few to a few dozen mutations that were not present in either parent. We know this has been true from the beginning because of human genetic variation. If we started from two individuals, they could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet there are dozens of alleles for most human gene loci. The rest appeared by mutation. That means perhaps 150,000 mutations in that time. (being extremely conservative). From this, you can see that a few million years wouldn't be too little to produce observed differences.

But let's try it another way. Assume 20 years generation time (again, conservative). That would mean 50,000 generations in a million years. The time of divergence was earlier than that, but we'll use a million to be conservative. Suppose a population of 10,000 hominins. A very conservative estimate would be 20,000 mutations per generation, or about a billion mutations over that time.

Let's say only 1% of them were favorable, and that all the differences between humans and chimps must be favorable for each. That means 10,000,000 favorable mutations.

Well over the number needed to account for the observed variation. There is a very good reason why most scientists who are Christian do not agree with that book. There is an organization of Christians in the sciences; this is their statement of faith:

We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.



We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.



We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.



We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

It is mostly composed of Christians in the sciences, but you don't have to be a scientist to join. You do, however, have to agree with their statement of faith. The American Scientific Affiliation might be a way for you to see how Christians in the sciences see creation. If you agree with their statement of faith, why not take a look?
http://network.asa3.org/

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Barbarian. I have seen how scientist Christians see their faith. I have read their testimonies in this book! I have no doubts that there are some others who would fit with what evolutionists would say. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, im aware of that! That there are many who don't agree with "that book" doesn't surprise me the tiniest little bit. I would imagine that as a given. But many do agree. Numbers don't matter to me how many believe something or don't. Many called, few chosen, where two or more are gathered in my name...Its not about numbers with God. What matters is what God says in His Word. Perhaps you would like to read this book? Why not take a look!

 

[Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian. I have seen how scientist Christians see their faith. I have read their testimonies in this book! I have no doubts that there are some others who would fit with what evolutionists would say. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, im aware of that! That there are many who don't agree with "that book" doesn't surprise me the tiniest little bit.

You realize that it is possible to accept the Bible without accepting evolution, right? Evolution is God's creation, but even if you don't accept the way He did it, you can still accept most of the Bible.

What matters is what God says in His Word. Perhaps you would like to read this book? Why not take a look!

We use the unabridged edition in my church.

 

[Free Christian]

I cannot as a Christian myself separate the creation, six days, from my beliefs. As it says in John, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Also that all was made by Him. Then the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, the only begotten of the Father. If I deny the creation as the Word tells us in Genesis and say as some do that it is just the words of men, mistaken words. Then I am denying Christ Himself, the Word. If Genesis is not fully correct then how can a person say anything else in the Bible is? What is their proof for what is and what is not? The proof of men? Jesus in His Word in Timothy 2 says that if we deny Him he will deny us. Can I accept Him in other areas and yet deny His creation, six day creation as the Bible clearly says. I cannot both accept and deny! There will be those in the last who will say "but Lord we did this, we did that in your name, we believed in you" but they will not be accepted. You can believe in Christ and yet not be accepted. To deny His word, any part of it, is to not truly honour Him as creator if you relegate the six day creation to the fiction section of Christianity. Many Christian religions the world over take sections of the Bible away to suit themselves and what "they" believe, saying this is true and this is not. In effect, denying the Creators version of things and supplementing it with their own because to them it makes better sense. I have no delusions that I myself can ever convince a non six day believer that it is actually true, none at all. Truth can only come through the witness of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the person. I cannot inject it into anyone, oh that I wish I could to turn someone lost in falsehood to the truth, but I cannot and I know that. I give my witness for Gods truth and do what my heart tells me I must, but in the end it is up to God Himself who he reveals His truth to. The Bible speaks of creation from its very first verses and clearly again in the beginning of John's gospel. That it was with and through Christ Himself. To deny Christs Genesis version of creation is to deny Christ Himself.

 

[Asyncritus]

...

You realize that it is possible to accept the Bible without accepting evolution, right? Evolution is God's creation, but even if you don't accept the way He did it, you can still accept most of the Bible.

Slight error there.

He didn't do it that way, no matter how much wishful thinking you indulge yourself in.

What matters is what God says in His Word. Perhaps you would like to read this book? Why not take a look!

We use the unabridged edition in my church.

Do you really? How often, and to what extent is it used? I'd be interested to know, given the history of repression of the Bible by your church.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

We use the unabridged edition in my church.

Do you really? How often, and to what extent is it used? I'd be interested to know, given the history of repression of the Bible by your church.

Maybe "his church" was adding to the Bible. From Day One, various people have added to the Bible. You might belong to a church that doesn't "add to the Bible", but you skim over the parts that are actually in the Bible that you don't want to obey.

You can't possibly obey the Bible, because it is contradictory.




Period.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You realize that it is possible to accept the Bible without accepting evolution, right? Evolution is God's creation, but even if you don't accept the way He did it, you can still accept most of the Bible.
Slight error there.

He didn't do it that way, no matter how much wishful thinking you indulge yourself in.

Sorry, His word is better than yours. No slight intended. It's better than anyone's.

Barbarian observes:
We use the unabridged edition in my church.

Do you really?

Yep.

How often, and to what extent is it used?

Several readings in during mass, each week, and I (and other CCD teachers) use it as the basis of our instruction. It, with the apostolic tradition, is the foundation of the Church.

I'd be interested to know, given the history of repression of the Bible by your church.

We preserved it and kept it intact during repressions and attempts to revise it. You have it only because we kept it and cherished it as God's word.

 

[Barbarian]

I cannot as a Christian myself separate the creation, six days, from my beliefs.

It's O.K. God won't send you to Hell for rejecting the way He did creation.

As it says in John, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Also that all was made by Him. Then the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, the only begotten of the Father.

All of which is consistent with his creation as we know it. None of that requires a six-day creation.

If I deny the creation as the Word tells us in Genesis and say as some do that it is just the words of men, mistaken words.

That would be an error. His word in Genesis is true and good. It's just that you aren't comfortable with the way some of it was done.

Then I am denying Christ Himself, the Word.

No. Even if you accept the modern revision of creation to make it a literal six days, you are not rejecting Christ.

 

[Sparkey]

Even if you accept the modern revision of creation to make it a literal six days

Moses spoke of this, didn't he? I'm talking about the very specific mention found in Exodus 20:8-9;10;11

Maybe if you define 'modern' for me? I don't like changing the meaning of words unnecessarily. But to compound the error by changing the word 'modern' to mean ancient makes it very difficult for me to follow. Should you choose to accept my challenge, be sure to show how you think things have changed in our 'modern' understanding of the length of one week, for instance, please show how Moses understood our 'modern' interpretation and taught it very specifically in verse Exodus 20:11 so many years ago.

Take note: Moses related the week we follow today to the Creation Week that the Holy Spirit wrote through him in Genesis. This does not seem 'modern' by any stretch of the imagination to me.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Even if you accept the modern revision of creation to make it a literal six days

Moses spoke of this, didn't he?

Actually, he wrote it, or at least communicated it to whoever wrote it down. But he wrote it as a symbolic narrative of creation. As Augustine and many other early Christians acknowledged.

I'm talking about the very specific mention found in Exodus 20:8-9;10;11

I don't see how mentioning an allegory makes it a literal history.

Maybe if you define 'modern' for me?

Modern revision. YE creationism is about as old as the last century. Even most evangelicals were, prior to that, OE. The form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example, was OE, not YE. And evangelical leaders like Spurgeon considered the Earth to be millions of years old.

I don't like changing the meaning of words unnecessarily. But to compound the error by changing the word 'modern' to mean ancient makes it very difficult for me to follow. Should you choose to accept my challenge, be sure to show how you think things have changed in our 'modern' understanding of the length of one week, for instance, please show how Moses understood our 'modern' interpretation and taught it very specifically in verse Exodus 20:11 so many years ago.

I don't think he considered it of any great importance. Surely God didn't, or He would have been more specific. But I doubt if Moses wouldn't have noticed the logical absurdity of a literal morning and evening with no Sun to have them.

Take note: Moses related the week we follow today to the Creation Week that the Holy Spirit wrote through him in Genesis.

He spoke of the creation week symbolically, relating to the day of rest and prayer. That doesn't require a literal creation week, either.

That does not seem 'modern' by any stretch of the imagination to me.

As I said, a symbolic understanding of the creation week seems to have been the earliest interpretation. I suspect Moses knew that when he wrote it that way, under God's inspiration.

 

[Sparkey]

He spoke of the creation week symbolically, relating to the day of rest and prayer. That doesn't require a literal creation week, either.

Yeah, it kind-of does. I mean, what was said was, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Notice the words "for" and "therefore". Now, try to make sense out of what was said but instead of thinking about a period of 24 hours - change it to an unspecified random but enormous amount of time.

For in six [periods of unspecified random enormous time, probably more than millions and even more than hundreds of millions of years, but maybe for the first few periods --milliseconds long], the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and then rested on the [subsequent random and unspecified enormous amount of time].

If the only way you care to define that amount of time that Moses mentioned is anything other than 24 hours, I would simply disagree. I do understand that your theory requires this of you. It's okay and like you said, God won't send you to hell for not understanding how he did it. I'm glad of that because frankly, neither do I understand. I do draw the line at teaching things that are not taught in the bible as if they were though.

 

[Barbarian]

I can only point out that ancient Christians like St. Augustine and Origen did not see these days as literal ones. A literal six-day creation was believed by some, e.g. St. Basil, but such a belief was never orthodoxy. It was an open question, as far as Christians were concerned, and it remains so among us.

 

[Sparkey]

I can understand that you state that you're in good company when the words of Moses are interpreted that way. But you've not been able to convince me that the way that Moses himself understood these things is in any sense 'modern'. How could it be?

 

[Barbarian]

For one thing, the idea of historical narrative is relatively recent. Even the first historians like Herodotus were inclined to look at things in a mythopoetic way, albeit with an increasing emphasis on checking facts, and gathering evidence. I'm very skeptical that educated Greeks really thought that there was a city of Gods at the top of Mt. Olympus.

And the Mesopotamian civilizations were much less historical in their outlook than the Greeks. So I'm pretty sure that Moses was presenting the truth in a way that would be understandable and consistent with the people to whom he was writing for.

 

[Sparkey]

Moses was presenting the truth in a way that would be understandable and consistent with the people to whom he was writing for.

Meaning what, exactly? I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you are trying to say that Moses set up the week and commanded rest on a certain day by reference to what you call mythopoetic manner, similar to the way the Ancient Greeks did when they spoke of Mt. Olympus, you're going down a very slippery slope. One that I would advise against.

 

[Free Christian]

What I find interesting is that us Six Day creation believers quote from God's Word scripture that evidences clearly what we state, created in six day, also what He states. We have scripture back up. 2 Timothy 3 v 16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". But all non six day believers do is quote from men, science books and theories! They then twist the Bible references by saying that they did not mean what they say or we think they say. In other words God's Word is wrong. The failure to have any real scripture backup and the failure to have use of scripture to back up the said theories goes against 2 Timothy 3 v 16. If this is the case, that no clear scripture evidence is able to be drawn upon other than the twisting of it and testimony of mere men then any said theory does not come from God. We know a tree by it's fruit! We give clear scripture proof as per 2 Timothy 3 v 16 as God tells us. I would ask for non six day believers to do the same, only using Gods Word!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Moses was presenting the truth in a way that would be understandable and consistent with the people to whom he was writing for.

Meaning what, exactly?

He didn't get into the details of how it worked, but instead, (as St. Augustine realized), the "days" were categories of creation, not literal 24-hour days. There could be no mornings and evenings without a sun, and we should be humble enough to realize that people back then were smart enough to realize that it couldn't have been a literal description. Remember, people of that time didn't use historical thinking to express those truths. Historical thinking was still a good way in the future.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you are trying to say that Moses set up the week and commanded rest on a certain day by reference to what you call mythopoetic manner, similar to the way the Ancient Greeks did when they spoke of Mt. Olympus, you're going down a very slippery slope.

Rather, God told him the truth, and he wrote it down in the best manner possible for the people to understand it. We shouldn't be surprised that there was no mention of gravity or protons or evolution. Not only are those things irrelevant to the point of Genesis, they would have been incomprehensible.

 

[Barbarian]

What I find interesting is that us Six Day creation believers quote from God's Word scripture that evidences clearly what we state, created in six day, also what He states.

Everyone thinks the way they understand it, is what God meant. But we need to understand that we are fallible humans. Your modern interpretation is not what most Christians have understood Genesis to be, now and in the past. The good news is that it really doesn't matter. God doesn't care about you knowing how He did it. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not how He created nature and then used it to effect the creation we see about us.

We have scripture back up. 2 Timothy 3 v 16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Surely you understand that traditional Christians see that as endorsing Genesis as Augustine and his fellow Christians saw it.

Some of them, even think that those who have re-interpreted Genesis to mean a literal six days, are saying that God is wrong. Of course, neither side is doing that. They just disagree on how to interpret Genesis. It's not a salvation issue. And we should be very careful not to place obstacles in the way of others coming to Him.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Barbarian. Ill go first and do what it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 16. I would draw your attention to the first chapter of Genesis in my use of scripture where it clearly says in six days and we are given clear examples of morning and evening marking out the time. In the last verse, Genesis 1 v 31 the last words being "and the evening and the morning were the sixth day". Exodus 20 v 11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is...". Exodus 31 v 17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...". So in the nicest possible way I can ask, lets leave references such as Augustine and other mere men or traditional Christians out of this for now and focus only on the scripture as proof. Proof which the Bible which you base your faith upon is as in 2 Timothy 3 v 16 your use for correction, reproof etc.. That's what the Word, Jesus tells us to do in those verses. It is now your turn.