[_ Old Earth _] In Six Days

[Free Christian]

Hello Barbarian. Does that mean that you checked out "The numbering pattern in Genesis" but have no comment on it, or possibly have no way to refute it, and the Light without sun one as well? To say that scripture does not support a literal Six Day creation when the Bible says clearly it does and we can give quoted examples of such, without adding anything to that scripture, does that mean that you are unable to give any scripture evidence to support your theory. To not be able to supply just one evidence in scripture puts the said theory into the same category as other non doctrinal teachings and practices. Heresy.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian. Does that mean that you checked out "The numbering pattern in Genesis" but have no comment on it, or possibly have no way to refute it, and the Light without sun one as well?

One can put a "numbering pattern" on anything after the fact. Carl Sagan once challenged a "numbers in Genesis" guy to show how his personal life was coded in the solar system, and the guy (being numerically adept) did so easily. But post-hoc numbering schemes lead you into the "Da Vinci Code" sort of foolishness.

To say that scripture does not support a literal Six Day creation when the Bible says clearly it does

That's the point; it doesn't say that at all. If it did, Christians would believe that it was true.

and we can give quoted examples of such, without adding anything to that scripture, does that mean that you are unable to give any scripture evidence to support your theory. To not be able to supply just one evidence in scripture puts the said theory into the same category as other non doctrinal teachings and practices. Heresy.

Heresy is willful denial of orthodoxy. And of course, a literal six-day creation is not and has never been orthodox Christian belief. It's an open question as far as most Christian denominations go. And it has always been so. You are surely not a heretic for denying how God managed creation; He doesn't care if you accept the way He did it, or not. But you would find your faith richer and more encompassing in your life if you would.

If this is impossible for you, there's nothing wrong. You can be saved, even if you hold to a literal creation week.

 

[Sparkey]

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.

Greetings Free,

I understand that Barbarian may keep his belief but think that you are putting the shoe on the wrong foot when you say that I dismiss his meaning. It is he that states that the day can not in any circumstance mean 24 hours. I have asserted, with evidence, that a 24 hour day is exactly what Moses meant.

As far as time being related to the existence of our sun? Even considering Einstein's thoughts there is no connection between a single star and the existence of time. I do see that there is a connection between the speed of matter and time but have never heard of Barbarians theory advanced, that the Sun itself must exist for time to remain constant. Have you?

yom is, in fact, used to indicate widely varying periods of time in other places in the OT.

You are, I assume, as familiar with the arguments surrounding the Hebrew word, YOM and it's various uses. Although it may be used to mean a period of greater than 24 hours, as in, "In the day of King Uzziah," which would sound more comfortable in English as, "In the days of King Uzziah..." it is never used in that sense when combined with cardinal and ordinal numbers indicating very specific time periods and certainly may not be used in that manner when speaking about the 7th day being the Sabbath day. In point of fact, the starting times and the ending times were set up according to the appearance of the dawning and setting of the sun. Although Time itself existed before God created the sun, as you know, the sun and the stars and other heavenly bodies were made for signs and seasons, for days and years. They were created after the fact to show (illuminate) the ORDER that exists in God and in all of His creation. That being the case, it can not mean millions of years.

If you wish to defend Barbarians conclusion as a loophole, I would ask you to explain how one day could have a variable amount of time when compared to another. Find one instance where cardinal and ordinal numbers indicating sequence includes your meaning and my whole thought will come to nothing. Baring that, admit that it is at least possible that a day can mean 24 hours. Some have spoken about the first few seconds of the Big-Bang, a theory that I do not hold to, but the idea is that the first day could have been only milliseconds long. Subsequent 'days' are considered of variable length in order to make the apparent contradiction between what God has stated and what men believe palatable. My opponents wish to state emphatically that a day can not mean 24 hours. There are numerous Scriptures that may be brought to prove this, that a day can mean a period of 24 hours. Look at what Moses spoke of in Exodus, chapter 20 to start.

Also notice that Barbarian has spoken to suggest that I include 'additions' to Scripture while supporting my premise, that a "day" may mean 24 hours. That is simply untrue. It was not me who stated that Moses held what the Lord said to be 'myth' or mytho-poetic, nor did I compare the Holy Scripture to the beliefs of heathens citing Mount Olympus. Free, let me ask you directly: Do you believe that Adam and Eve existed or are they a figment of the imagination like Zeus? Barbarian has classified Genesis along with other 'mythopoetic' narratives and has stated, "I'm very skeptical that educated Greeks really thought that there was a city of Gods at the top of Mt. Olympus." He has wisely refrained from further expression of these radical ideas, but I would like to ask you now if the idea of a literal Garden of Eden and a literal week of creation holds more merit than the concept of Mount Olympus and Greek gods to you.

Free, I notice that you've also addressed Free Christian regarding the sun in Revelation. But it was me who pointed out the problem with Barbarian's thought that time itself is dependant on the existence of the sun by way of asking him a question that he chose to not answer. The question: If the sun is necessary for time to continue or to flow fluently, what about the time to come? Does God depend on creation or is it the other way around?

 

[Sparkey]

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.

Greetings Barbarian,

Free seems to be concerned that I do not allow you to think for yourself or to express your opinion but to me? I'm at this same point that you speak of above; the very conclusion that we have reached together years ago. For the record: Your opinion is yours and I have no problem with that. I do appreciate the fact that you listen to opposition and hope that you hold that same esteem for me. Looking forward to continuing this conversation with you in heaven, brother. One of us will *wink* then, methinks. It will be as men, winking at the thoughts of their childhood.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hello Barbarian. Does that mean that you checked out "The numbering pattern in Genesis" but have no comment on it, or possibly have no way to refute it, and the Light without sun one as well?

One can put a "numbering pattern" on anything after the fact. Carl Sagan once challenged a "numbers in Genesis" guy to show how his personal life was coded in the solar system, and the guy (being numerically adept) did so easily. But post-hoc numbering schemes lead you into the "Da Vinci Code" sort of foolishness.

Amen.


"the numbering pattern in Genesis" = refuted, without an inkling of a doubt

 

[Sparkey]

the numbering pattern in Genesis

I'm curious about what Free Christian meant when he spoke of a "numbering pattern" and would hold the assumption back that it necessarily means "Da Vinci Code" and that meaning only. Could not the pattern mentioned mean: 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc?

Curious to hear from the source before dismissing it as a little knowledge may have brought us to dangerous leaps. Why assume when one may ask?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

the numbering pattern in Genesis

I'm curious about what Free Christian meant when he spoke of a "numbering pattern" and would hold the assumption back that it necessarily means "Da Vinci Code" and that meaning only. Could not the pattern mentioned mean: 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc?

Curious to hear from the source before dismissing it as a little knowledge may have brought us to dangerous leaps. Why assume when one may ask?

Good catch, Sparrow.

I read the words "numbering pattern" and immediately assumed it was one of those ridiculous code-type things again, and I'm guessing Barbarian did the same.



Free Christian, I actually just went and checked out the link:

http://creation.com/the-numbering-pattern-of-genesis




I agree that the writer/writers of Genesis meant literal, 24-hour days. The problem comes when people see evidence that the story is simply untrue if it is literal, but they still want to cling to the belief they have in their own version of the god of the Bible.

It will be interesting to see how much belief in the Bible dwindles in the coming years. Naturally, kids would rather do something else than go to church. When you're a child, it seems like your 80th birthday is so far away that it seems like infinity-- like you will never reach it. When you start getting into your thirties and forties, the reality hits you that "Yes, you will turn 80-- if you're even lucky enough to live that long." Kids these days will learn a lot off the internet. They will become educated at a faster rate. If they can prove to their parents that the Bible is a compilation of ancient human writings and nothing more, they will try to do just that, so they can spend their Sundays doing something fun. Now, in the "slain in the Spirit" churches, the kids who have fun flipping and flopping on the ground will enjoy church for a longer stretch of years. Like I said, these are interesting times.

 

[Sparkey]

the numbering pattern in Genesis

I'm curious about what Free Christian meant when he spoke of a "numbering pattern" and would hold the assumption back that it necessarily means "Da Vinci Code" and that meaning only. Could not the pattern mentioned mean: 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc?

Curious to hear from the source before dismissing it as a little knowledge may have brought us to dangerous leaps. Why assume when one may ask?

Good catch, Sparrow.

...

I looked at your link and see that I made a mistake while referencing what I had read before. I should have said (while being very literal): "Day One, 2nd Day, 3rd Day, etc."

Still interested in what Free Christian may have meant.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

the numbering pattern in Genesis

I'm curious about what Free Christian meant when he spoke of a "numbering pattern" and would hold the assumption back that it necessarily means "Da Vinci Code" and that meaning only. Could not the pattern mentioned mean: 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc?

Curious to hear from the source before dismissing it as a little knowledge may have brought us to dangerous leaps. Why assume when one may ask?

Good catch, Sparrow.

...

I looked at your link and see that I made a mistake while referencing what I had read before. I should have said (while being very literal): "Day One, 2nd Day, 3rd Day, etc."

Still interested in what Free Christian may have meant.

You might have made a small mistake(that I didn't even catch), but you were right about me being premature with my dismissal. I'm glad you called me out on that because it made me actually check the link and post the direct link that wasn't previously posted.


Here's the way I see the "meat and potatoes" of the discussion between Barbarian and Free Christian:

You have an ancient writing that doesn't fit with reality. It doesn't fit the scientific evidence.

Both Barbarian and Free Christian want to believe in the Book of Genesis.

Barbarian twists the book to fit with the evidence.

Free Christian twists the evidence to fit with the book.

When I consider the book, I think "Hmmmm . . . people sometimes make up stories. Sometimes, these stories are a hybrid of both fictional and actual events". To me, that explanation easily fits with reality-- without all the twisting.

 

[Sparkey]

Fair enough. My best 'foot to the fire' answer is similar. It includes my lack: "I don't know. I didn't do it and did not witness. I have no understanding beyond my simple reading of what was said."

Cardinal numbers are used to give a sense of size whereas ordinal numbers are used to give a sense of position relative to other numbers. Hence, 6th comes after 5th and before 7th, showing position. Whereas six (6) days of work quantifies the amount of time showing the quantity to be exactly 6 times the amount of the following one (1) day of rest. I believe that is what the Bible directly states, that we are to model our concept of times and days and years etc., after the time it took God to create then rest in the beginning.

I mean no insult by saying this in so simple of terms and would now hesitate to create any 'additions' that may confound the matter.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, there is the numbering pattern. The first three days describe creation first of light, then of the heavens, and then of Earth. The next three days describe the creatures of those things, fourth day, the "lamps" of the firmament, fifth day, the creatures of the waters, and last of all, the creatures of the earth. And on the seventh day, creation finished, God rested.

So there is a pair of triads, of categories of creation, presented in a symbolic ways as days of a week.

It is not a departure from Hebrew literary conventions.

 

[Narwhalist]

Quick question for those who believe in 6 day creation. How long was the 7th day?

 

[felix]

Its not about numbers with God. What matters is what God says in His Word.

You exactly said it right. God created the heavens and earth and all in it in 6 days and rested on 7th day. But, where does God said 144 hrs? and rested for 24 hrs? Don't you think that is an addition to God's Word?

So, let's see what God has to say: God in Gen 1:5 created light, separated it from darkness and called it day and the darkness he called it night - so the "morning and evening" where the first day. Question: how long was thing day? 24 hrs? The "24 hrs" is based on rotation of earth with respect to sun. Without the sun on the first day, the day it is not 24 hrs. Further, God created the sun, moon and stars for us for signs and seasons - not for Him to be on schedule. Bible also supports longer days on 2 occasions which are clearly not 24 hrs.

If you believe God rested on the 7th day, and if you believe Christians have a future rest with God according to Heb 6 (which refers to the same rest of God), and God already rested and we are yet to enter His rest, which day are we on? Ans: 6th Day. Earth has a dateless past, and no one knows when the 6th day began.

 

[Sparkey]

The "24 hrs" is based on rotation of earth with respect to sun.

Interesting assumption there. I do not say that your premise is not based on reason, only that it is not based on correct reason. Prove to me that there can be no 24-hour periods of time if the sun does not exist, please.

 

[felix]

The "24 hrs" is based on rotation of earth with respect to sun.

Interesting assumption there. I do not say that your premise is not based on reason, only that it is not based on correct reason. Prove to me that there can be no 24-hour periods of time if the sun does not exist, please.

I can even prove to you by going further that there can be no 24 hour period of time even with the Sun! Would that be ok?

• (2 Kings 20:9) Then Isaiah said, "This is the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing which He has spoken: [shall] the shadow go forward ten degrees or go backward ten degrees?"
• (Joshua 10:13) So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. [Is] this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go [down] for about a whole day.

 

[Sparkey]

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go [down] for about a whole day.

It seems to me that you have confirmed what I have said somewhat. What we see here is that a day continues to exist independent of the sun's movement. How long did that particular 'day' last please?

 

[felix]

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go [down] for about a whole day.

It seems to me that you have confirmed what I have said somewhat. What we see here is that a day continues to exist independent of the sun's movement. How long did that particular 'day' last please?

Yes, that's exactly my point. A day has nothing to do with God's definition of what a day is. 24 hrs for a day is a human interpretation.
The day lasted certainly more than 24 hrs debunking the "idea" that a day has to be literal 24 hrs in creation account.

 

[Sparkey]

A day has nothing to do with God's definition of what a day is.

You've lost me there. What? God does not rule the day?

The day lasted certainly more than 24 hrs debunking the "idea" that a day has to be literal 24 hrs in creation account.

I am completely baffled how those who speak to me about this try to say that I am insisting that a "Day", spoken of in Genesis, must be a 24 hour period. That is not what I said. What I am saying is that it may be a 24 hour period. My opponents state that the day, again spoken of in Genesis 1, may not be counted as a 24 hour period. They have stated that this period of time may be any length of time from milliseconds long to millions and perhaps even billions of years, that the only thing it can not be is a 24 hour period.

If that is the case, the burden of proof is on the one who disputes. Show me how this period of time can NOT be 24 hours and be done with it.

 

[felix]

A day has nothing to do with God's definition of what a day is.

You've lost me there. What? God does not rule the day?

The day lasted certainly more than 24 hrs debunking the "idea" that a day has to be literal 24 hrs in creation account.

I am completely baffled how those who speak to me about this try to say that I am insisting that a "Day", spoken of in Genesis, must be a 24 hour period. That is not what I said. What I am saying is that it may be a 24 hour period. My opponents state that the day, again spoken of in Genesis 1, may not be counted as a 24 hour period. They have stated that this period of time may be any length of time from milliseconds long to millions and perhaps even billions of years, that the only thing it can not be is a 24 hour period.

If that is the case, the burden of proof is on the one who disputes. Show me how this period of time can NOT be 24 hours and be done with it.

God allowed the Sun to rule the day from 4th Day of Creation. Genesis 1:17-18

That is not my burden but rather people who add to God's Word and redefining a day of creation to 24 hrs .. now that's a terrible sin and it's their burden.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

That is not my burden but rather people who add to God's Word and redefining a day of creation to 24 hrs .. now that's a terrible sin and it's their burden.

Or . . . how about this?

An ancient Middle-Eastern man made up the Creation Story. He wasn't worried about getting technical with his story. Neither he nor the immediate people around him that he was telling the story to ever thought of the implications of a 24-hour Earth rotation that makes the sun appear to rise and set through the eyes of a scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age homo-sapiens. He himself thought of the "7 days", and his listeners thought nothing peculiar of it.

That explanation makes perfect sense, even if there are other explanations that fit just as well.

Your boldly-stated argument totally bypasses this entirely realistic possibility.