[_ Old Earth _] In Six Days

[Barbarian]

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.

Problem is, it isn't clear about that. Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, requires that you add some things to the text to make it work, which is not a good idea. Better to just accept it as it is, and accept that it's symbolic, not literal history (which as I mentioned, wasn't the way people accounted events in that 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.

You are a mere man also. And not nearly as persuasive as St. Augustine. And as you see, your argument keeps running into the same fact; any attempt to make Genesis into a literal history keeps running into logical absurdities. Why not just accept it as it is?

Why not just accept an understanding that doesn't require adding things to the text?

 

[Sparkey]

Everyone thinks the way they understand it, is what God meant.

Some think that the way God said it is impossible and look for understanding beyond His declared Word.

We shouldn't be surprised that there was no mention of gravity or protons or evolution.

We're not talking Brain Science or Rocket Surgery here. We're simply speaking about the length of a week as Moses understood and taught. Not that much wiggle room there, no need to consider Quantum Mechanics whatsoever. The basic truths of the Bible from the Word of God is perspicuous, clear, and may be understood clearly by the ordinary reader. God does understand our limits and spoke to us in a manner that a Father would to His child. That does not mean he lied, it means that we will not be ashamed if we let what He has said remain true.

God's Word was never intended to be esoteric, dark, enigmatic, cryptic, abstruse, obscure, ambiguous, occluded, enshrouded, inscrutable, or vague. Rather, it is a perfect, sure, right, pure, clean and true light, illuminating the character and plan of God. Read Psalm 19:7-9. See also Psalm 119:105,130.

 

[Vaccine]

God does understand our limits and spoke to us in a manner that a Father would to His child. That does not mean he lied, it means that we will not be ashamed if we let what He has said remain true.

Having small children of my own I can relate to this. I'm sure that's why there isn't any quantum physics in the bible.
I believe Moses talked to God. I believe Moses received firsthand knowledge from God. I believe that information has not been corrupted or altered over the years and is reliable. I accept it a face value.
To me when Jesus mention Johan and Noah, two of the harder to believe stories, I realized I had a conflict between what Jesus said and what science said. Science is just human knowledge. Once I "allowed a divine foot in the door" to science, it all made sense to me. Jesus had the opportunity to correct or alter any mistakes made in the past, yet confirmed two of the harder to believe stories. I'm not sure but wouldn't Jesus have corrected any misconceptions about the length of a week? Can we assume there were no errors then?
[MENTION=30546]Barbarian[/MENTION] Hello! Not sure what you mean by "adding things to the text"? We are talking about "the length of a week as Moses understood it"?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Everyone thinks the way they understand it, is what God meant.

Some think that the way God said it is impossible and look for understanding beyond His declared Word.

I just take it as it is. The advantage of my way, is that you don't have to add anything to it. In order to make it a literal history, you have to add some things to explain the contradictions.

Barbarian observes:
We shouldn't be surprised that there was no mention of gravity or protons or evolution.

We're not talking Brain Science or Rocket Surgery here.

True. It's much more complicated than that. Creation of a world in which we could live required a lot of complications. None of it was what Genesis is about.

We're simply speaking about the length of a week as Moses understood and taught.

If Moses had understood it as literal history, he surely would not have had mornings and evenings before there was a Sun.

God does understand our limits and spoke to us in a manner that a Father would to His child. That does not mean he lied,

I'm not saying that literalists think He lied; I'm just pointing out that one can reconcile the contradictions of a literal history in Genesis, only by adding new things to the text. I don't favor that approach. But I don't see it as anything that will put your salvation in danger.

 

[Barbarian]

Having small children of my own I can relate to this. I'm sure that's why there isn't any quantum physics in the bible.
I believe Moses talked to God. I believe Moses received firsthand knowledge from God. I believe that information has not been corrupted or altered over the years and is reliable. I accept it a face value.

Everyone thinks that. But Christians differ on what "face value" means.

To me when Jesus mention Johan and Noah, two of the harder to believe stories,

The beauty of accept the text as it is, means that nothing in it is hard to believe.

I realized I had a conflict between what Jesus said and what science said.

But there isn't any conflict. There certainly is evidence for a large flood in the Middle East thousands of years ago. And since the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide, it's quite possible the Flood actually happened. Or if it's entirely an allegory for man's failure and God's mercy, then that's what it is. It doesn't matter, any more than it matters if there really was a good Samaritan.

Science is just human knowledge. Once I "allowed a divine foot in the door" to science, it all made sense to me. Jesus had the opportunity to correct or alter any mistakes made in the past, yet confirmed two of the harder to believe stories. I'm not sure but wouldn't Jesus have corrected any misconceptions about the length of a week? Can we assume there were no errors then?

There's nothing to correct. Only if we try to impose our modern ideas of narrative on the text, is there a problem.

@Barbarian Hello! Not sure what you mean by "adding things to the text"?

The usual practice for literalists, faced with mornings and evenings with no Sun, suggest that God just made a supernatural source of light to do until He could get around to making the Sun.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Barbarian. I gave my examples through God's Word as to why and where in It my true belief is in Six Days lays. As would be expected from one asked or willing to give them in defence of their belief. In accordance with what is outlined in the text in 2 Timothy 3 v 16. You are clearly not able to do so! Yes I am a mere man, no argument there, but I am not giving a mere mans example, I am directly quoting from the Almighty God's Word. Those were not my words, they are God's. You will find that in heaven there will be no need for a sun as God will be the source of light, so light with no sun for a light source is not a "bad idea" as you imagine it is, Revelation 21 v 3. Perhaps taking a look at the following link may illuminate your mind as to the morning and evening part of Genesis which you have a problem with. http://creation.com/evenings-and-mornings

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian. I gave my examples through God's Word as to why and where in It my true belief is in Six Days lays.

I understand your reasoning. I just find it less compelling than God's word.

You are clearly not able to do so!

As you see, you cannot put a literal interpretation on the creation week without adding to scripture. I think this is a faulty approach. We'll just have to disagree on that.

Yes I am a mere man, no argument there, but I am not giving a mere mans example

Yes, you are. Your particular interpretation is your attempt to make sense of it, in light of what you'd like it to be.

I am directly quoting from the Almighty God's Word.

So am I. The difference is, my understanding is consistent with the text. And yours needs some addition to make it work.

Those were not my words, they are God's. You will find that in heaven there will be no need for a sun as God will be the source of light, so light with no sun for a light source is not a "bad idea" as you imagine it is,

Inventing a new, unscriptural doctrine to make Genesis fit your expectations is not a good idea. If it's not in the text, then it probably shouldn't be added.

 

[Sparkey]

So am I. The difference is, my understanding is consistent with the text. And yours needs some addition to make it work.

I am curious. Tell me more. Seems to me that if Moses spoke about a Creation Week and I think he meant a week when he said it --there is no need for what you call "additions". On the other hand, here comes a man who states that a week does not mean 7 days, and then states:

Creation of a world in which we could live required a lot of complications. None of it was what Genesis is about.

That man further reasons: "If Moses had understood it as literal history, he surely would not have had mornings and evenings before there was a Sun."

What? What was that? Now we're getting into the "additions" you spoke about, right? Additions such as how a man can say a "week" and mean billions of years. This is based on the premise that days MUST NOT MEAN a 24-hour period since the sun was not created until the 4th day of the week. Why is that exactly? Please, no "additions" to Scripture, here. So it follows that God didn't know what a day was because He didn't have the sun for a reference point? I don't buy it.

There are no "additions" required (that I know of) to believe what was said as meaning what it means. That's like saying "Yes" means "yes" and "No" means "no". What can be added to that?

PS. We've also let your concept of 'modern" slip through the cracks. I'd like to hear your definition of the word as you used it. If days can mean years or milliseconds then certainly 'modern' can mean ancient. Right?

Even if you accept the modern revision of creation to make it a literal six days, you are not rejecting Christ.

 

[Free Christian]

If I directly quoted from God's Word then how did I add to it or invent? I did make a mistake though, it should have been Revelation 21 v 23, not v 3. Sorry people. Rev 21 v 23 "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the Glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light". As it says in the gospel of John in chapter 1 Jesus was there at creation and directly involved in it John 1 v 3 "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made". When God in His word says 6 days in Genesis and Exodus and then I say 6 days in quoting the same, without adding just quoting. Then saying that the person has had to make additions to make it work is very strange. It is always striking in how those who deny the Six day creation are never able to quote from scripture to back up their claims and yet those who do believe in the Six day creation are always able to, simply by quoting the scripture directly which give clear evidence of their belief, without adding or inventing. The Six day non believers arguments are always so lacking in scripture. Who should be trusted, those who rely upon men and theories for their proofs or those who rely upon God and His scripture? No contest. Barbarian, do you have any scripture at all with which to back up your beliefs, which you can quote? Surely if we are wrong you would be able to. How could those who you say are wrong be able to do so, but those who say they are right cannot? That in itself is not in keeping with what the Bible teaches us.

 

[Barbarian]

I am curious. Tell me more. Seems to me that if Moses spoke about a Creation Week and I think he meant a week when he said it --there is no need for what you call "additions". On the other hand, here comes a man who states that a week does not mean 7 days,

Rather, a man who states that "Yom" is used to mean all sorts of things, including a day, a period of time, always, "in my time" etc.

and then states:

Creation of a world in which we could live required a lot of complications. None of it was what Genesis is about.
That man further reasons: "If Moses had understood it as literal history, he surely would not have had mornings and evenings before there was a Sun."

What? What was that?

Genesis says there were mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. Moses surely would have realized the error there, if God told him this was a literal history of creation.

Now we're getting into the "additions" you spoke about, right? Additions such as how a man can say a "week" and mean billions of years.

Actually, he didn't say "week." And of course, it's quite possible to use "Yom" to mean other things than a literal day. Sometimes, as in Genesis, the Bible uses symbolism to express what is true.

This is based on the premise that days MUST NOT MEAN a 24-hour period since the sun was not created until the 4th day of the week. Why is that exactly?

Because by definition, morning and evening require a Sun.

Please, no "additions" to Scripture, here. So it follows that God didn't know what a day was because He didn't have the sun for a reference point?

Unless you redefine those words, it's a logical absurdity. And redefining words to fit one's theology is probably not a good idea.

There are no "additions" required (that I know of) to believe what was said as meaning what it means.

The addition is, as you might have seen here, that God substituted some other light source for the Sun until He could get around to making a Sun.

PS. We've also let your concept of 'modern" slip through the cracks. I'd like to hear your definition of the word as you used it.

YE creationism was invented in the early years of the last century. Modern, in terms of Church history.

If days can mean years or milliseconds then certainly 'modern' can mean ancient. Right?

It's very unlikely that God told Moses how old the universe was. Why would He do that?

 

[Sparkey]

Because by definition, morning and evening require a Sun.

By your definition, that is. And this is not required in the Word of God. What say you about the new Heaven? Will it be chaotic time? Or will things be done in order. And if in order, will that order be defined by you?

 

[Sparkey]

YE creationism was invented in the early years of the last century. Modern, in terms of Church history.

Are you trying to state that what St. Augustine argued against was not thought or or invented until after he had died? What then? To what length will you go? The defense of your ill-chosen word fights against your previous argument. What about the beliefs of Jewish Historian Josephus?

 

[Free Christian]

No sun for a light source in Revelation 21 v 23!

 

[Barbarian]

Are you trying to state that what St. Augustine argued against was not thought or or invented until after he had died? What then?

Don't have to. There were some Christians, even then who thought that Genesis was a history, but taking a look at what they said, it does not at all fit YE beliefs. Basil the great is often cited as a dissenter from the consensus for a symbolic Genesis. Yet Basil writes:

And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, age of age, and ages of ages, we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action.
http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/04/st-basil-on-the-six-days-of-creation/

Not the modern conception of the YE creationists.

To what length will you go? The defense of your ill-chosen word fights against your previous argument. What about the beliefs of Jewish Historian Josephus?

See above. Haven't read Josephus. What did he say? (Barbarian checks)

Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly.
Josephus, preface to The Antiquities of the Jews

 

[Sparkey]

I would thank you to limit your conversation to the subject and thread topic, that being the 6 Days of Creation. We are not speaking about the entire range of Young Earth Creationism. Of course there have been recent conversations, broadly publicized, on that matter but that does not mean that the 6 Days of Creation is a modern thought.

Also, you have not replied to my Post #31, may I assume that was intentional? You sought to define a word according to your limits and observations. Do you have authority to do so? Does your definition, that a day can be any period of time, from eons to milliseconds except it may not be 24 hours, agree with Scripture, especially Revelation?

That's a pretty strange definition in any case. How exactly do you see this applying to the sense of what Moses said, please?

 

[Barbarian]

I would thank you to limit your conversation to the subject and thread topic, that being the 6 Days of Creation. We are not speaking about the entire range of Young Earth Creationism. Of course there have been recent conversations, broadly publicized, on that matter but that does not mean that the 6 Days of Creation is a modern thought.

I notice St. Basil and Josephus weren't on record for literal 24 hour days.

It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, age of age, and ages of ages, we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action.
St. Basil

Also, you have not replied to my Post #31, may I assume that was intentional? You sought to define a word according to your limits and observations.

It is the way people use those words. And that is how they are defined.

Do you have authority to do so? Does your definition, that a day can be any period of time, from eons to milliseconds except it may not be 24 hours, agree with Scripture, especially Revelation?

I'm merely pointing out that "Yom" (which was translated as "Day") can mean many other things as well. And given the issue of mornings and evenings, it's clear that Moses wasn't thinking of a normal 24-hour day.

That's a pretty strange definition in any case. How exactly do you see this applying to the sense of what Moses said, please?

I think Josephus was right. Moses was using allegory in much of it.

By your definition, that is. And this is not required in the Word of God. What say you about the new Heaven? Will it be chaotic time? Or will things be done in order. And if in order, will that order be defined by you?

Why would you have time in a spiritual realm? Time is here in the physical.

“The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most temporal part of time--for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.”
C.S. Lewis

I do not think time will exist as we think of it here.

 

[Free Christian]

All through the New Testament we have Jesus Himself quoting scripture as evidence of what He said or taught as proof. Even in the letters we have scripture being quoted as evidence in numerous places. Quoting the scripture as evidence has clearly been taught to us, by Christ Himself and also by the Apostles. Its clear that we are to be able to do this, or should do this, to show or back up what we say. Its Biblical! No non Six Day believer is ever able to do this. We can even, Six Day believers, show scripture to back up light with no sun as in Revelation. Scripture supporting scripture as in reference to the first chapter of Genesis where light was before the sun, backed up by Revelation 21. Still no scripture proofs from non Six Day'ers!

 

[Free]

I would thank you to limit your conversation to the subject and thread topic, that being the 6 Days of Creation. We are not speaking about the entire range of Young Earth Creationism. Of course there have been recent conversations, broadly publicized, on that matter but that does not mean that the 6 Days of Creation is a modern thought.

Also, you have not replied to my Post #31, may I assume that was intentional? You sought to define a word according to your limits and observations. Do you have authority to do so? Does your definition, that a day can be any period of time, from eons to milliseconds except it may not be 24 hours, agree with Scripture, especially Revelation?

That's a pretty strange definition in any case. How exactly do you see this applying to the sense of what Moses said, please?

Just curious as to what basis you have for wanting Barbarian to believe that "day" must mean a literal 24-hr day, but yet dismiss "his" meaning of "morning and evening" as requiring a Sun.

Personally, I don't see how one can have a morning and evening without a Sun, unless the phrase "morning and evening" doesn't really mean what it plainly states. I think that if one is going to argue otherwise, then they must allow that "day" can mean something other than a literal 24-hr period. To do otherwise is not consistent, especially since yom is, in fact, used to indicate widely varying periods of time in other places in the OT.

All through the New Testament we have Jesus Himself quoting scripture as evidence of what He said or taught as proof. Even in the letters we have scripture being quoted as evidence in numerous places. Quoting the scripture as evidence has clearly been taught to us, by Christ Himself and also by the Apostles. Its clear that we are to be able to do this, or should do this, to show or back up what we say. Its Biblical! No non Six Day believer is ever able to do this. We can even, Six Day believers, show scripture to back up light with no sun as in Revelation. Scripture supporting scripture as in reference to the first chapter of Genesis where light was before the sun, backed up by Revelation 21. Still no scripture proofs from non Six Day'ers!

So, seeing as how you want to use this as proof that we can have "light with no Sun," how do you explain the "evening" part of Genesis, which would mean a lack of light? Where did God go?

You will notice in context:

Rev 21:23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
Rev 21:24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,
Rev 21:25 and its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. (ESV)

There will be no night, according to Rev 21:25. So where did the night come from in Genesis?

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Free, and Barbarian. Maybe have a look at www.creation.com and type "The numbering pattern of Genesis" into the search there. The article on it will be the first on the list. You will clearly see there an explanation on a day as in 24 hrs. I would be interested to hear what you all think. Also type in the search "When God made something out of nothing" for an example of how there was darkness.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think I'm going to change any minds. And since it really doesn't matter as far as God is concerned, I think I'll just agree to disagree, and be done with it.