[_ Old Earth _] The Day-Age Theory?

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But the text clearly does not say it was done in six literal days.

Christians, long before Darwin were aware that these passages were not literal histories.

It is easy to understand that you refuse to be persuaded otherwise no matter what.

Augustine's clarity of reason, and plain speaking come through even if you don't know Latin. While modern Christians sometimes take Genesis as a literal timetable of events, the ancient Christians were not so easily persuaded.

Further, it is clear that your position demands this refusal. Why, how else could the earth be billions and billions of years old?

Augustine had an answer for that, as well.
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in the Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture, but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. (De Genesi ad litteram, Book I, chapter 18)

Your challenge then is to go ahead and teach how to speak more clearly? I'm listening.

St. Augustine seems to have laid it out nicely. He was a brilliant man, who loved God and sought the truth. And so, he openly admitted:
It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days.

The question has vexed numerous wise and pious and humble men, willing to hear what God says. It's not easy, and it's not clear what the days mean.

His conclusions, he was willing to set aside, pending further understanding. Which is probably a good thing. God is, after all truth. We should never fear the truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Your view demands that Moses spoke in an unclear fashion when he mentioned the creation week.

It is, as Augustine noted, not an easy thing to understand.

BUT did Paul? Look to his letter to the Romans. The Romans were taught, quite clearly and with great care that, "... through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin..."

Which is not a problem for Christianity. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam does so, bringing death into the world, but lives on physically for many years thereafter. So it is clear God is not speaking of physical death here; if He was, Adam would have physically died that day.

Do the Romans reject this teaching also?

I'm very sure St. Paul knew exactly what that death was and what it was about. He did not expect to avoid dying physically. He was looking beyond that, to the life that God promised.

And yes, the Resurrection was literally true. It finally defeated death. But if it was intended to defeat physical death, it failed. We will all die someday. But we will live on, if we trust in Him.

 

[turnorburn]

Its not hard to understand, a child can understand it..

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Your opinion does not count as much as St. Augustine's as far as I'm concerned. The modern revision that says it's simply a history, doesn't stand up to inspection.

 

[turnorburn]

Not my opinion Barbarian its Gods word spoken by God himself..

tob

 

[Free]

Its not hard to understand, a child can understand it..

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

tob

So you're saying that God created everything 6, 12-hour days?

 

[turnorburn]

Lets let God say it, you don't believe me..

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

tob

 

[turnorburn]

This is going in the direction of "hath God said"

tob

 

[stovebolts]

Which is not a problem for Christianity. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam does so, bringing death into the world, but lives on physically for many years thereafter. So it is clear God is not speaking of physical death here; if He was, Adam would have physically died that day.

If you cut a branch off a tree in the fall, is it dead, even though it will bud in the spring?

Why then does the Father in the parable of the prodigal son refer to his son as dead? And why does Paul mention baptism for the dead... for we were all dead before we were baptized into Christ.

 

[Sparkey]

So when God says "a day" and clarifies it to mean a morning and evening - you says He means years and years. And when He says that SIN entered the world through one man and death by sin -- you says He clearly means something other than physical death (I like the idea of both and think it fits well). Then you go on to declare that, in your opinion, Paul knows what he's talking about.

But ...

• Paul begins his argument in Romans by asserting that God’s wrath is being poured out against mankind because of their sinfulness (1:18).
• Chapter 2 points out that even the Gentiles have no excuse because they have knowledge of God's law written on their hearts by what we would call a conscience (2:17–29)
• Paul continues to instruct that the law is not capable of saving anyone; it can only turn sin into willful transgression (3:19).
• But God has provided a means of justification through faith in Jesus Christ (3:21) and a person cannot become righteous through his own works, so no one can boast (3:22–29).
• Then Paul presents his conclusion -- Adam’s sin brought death, whereas Christ’s sacrifice results in life for all who believe.

I'm very sure St. Paul knew exactly what that death was and what it was about.

At the beginning Paul spoke of Jew and Gentile but he then discarded these labels and spoke of two races; the race of Adam and the race of Christ. All people, Paul teaches, stand in relationship with one or the other of these two men whose actions determine eternal destiny of all who belong to them.

Paul treats both men as real historical figures. To Paul, Adam is as real as Jesus. But then Paul never met Jesus until after His death. I am certain that Paul knows the difference between real and make believe.

 

[Sparkey]

Paul insists that people were really “made” sinners through Adam’s act of disobedience just as they were really “made righteous” through Christ’s obedience. Paul clarifies his instruction and shows that to be righteous does not mean to be morally upright in all things, but instead to have been judged and acquitted, cleared of all charges.

Paul is arguing that both individuals acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. His argument looses cohesiveness if either of these men are fictional or if they did not actually do what God has declared. Paul clearly regards Genesis to be a historically accurate document. Three chapters later, he points out that the whole creation was subjected to futility because of the Fall. (Rom 8:19-23)

In his first letter to Timothy, chapter two, Paul teaches about the role of men and women in church by appealing to the order of creation. Neither Paul nor the Bible teaches man's superiority to woman. Instead we find the true instruction that Adam was created before Eve and the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not.

Paul also spoke to the Corinthians saying much the same thing as he did to the Romans. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul calls Jesus ‘the Last Adam’, bringing resurrection from the dead, in contrast to ‘the first man, Adam’, who brought death.

In all these instructions the Holy Spirit presents the fact that Adam was a historical figure.

 

[Free]

Lets let God say it, you don't believe me..

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

tob

That doesn't answer my question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Barbarian]

So when God says "a day" and clarifies it to mean a morning and evening

Without a sun? This is why Christian thought of it as something other than a literal day.

you says He means years and years.

No. I tend to go with the traditional interpretation that it's about categories of creation, not actual time periods.

And when He says that SIN entered the world through one man and death by sin -- you says He clearly means something other than physical death (I like the idea of both and think it fits well).

Obviously, if it's a physical death God was speaking of, Adam would have been physically dead by the end of the day. But since he didn't die physically that day, we can know that the "death" was something else. And since God shows us in His creation that physical death existed long before Adam, that reinforces the point.

Then you go on to declare that, in your opinion, Paul knows what he's talking about.

In the sense that I accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Paul begins his argument in Romans by asserting that God’s wrath is being poured out against mankind because of their sinfulness (1:18).

Right. And God is capable of focusing just on humans, not taking it out on innocent animals.

Chapter 2 points out that even the Gentiles have no excuse because they have knowledge of God's law written on their hearts by what we would call a conscience (2:17–29)

It's more than that. Reason plays a role in it, as Paul says:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

This is what the Church calls "natural law", that which all men know and understand. But there's more to it:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So, we are obligated (without excuse) to also see what God's creation will tell us of His works. So as Augustine said, we need to be aware that the authority of creation is also important and this authority cannot contradict scripture.

Then Paul presents his conclusion -- Adam’s sin brought death, whereas Christ’s sacrifice results in life for all who believe.

Of course. It's just that this is much more important than mere physical death.

Barbarian observes:
I'm very sure St. Paul knew exactly what that death was and what it was about.

At the beginning Paul spoke of Jew and Gentile but he then discarded these labels and spoke of two races; the race of Adam and the race of Christ. All people, Paul teaches, stand in relationship with one or the other of these two men whose actions determine eternal destiny of all who belong to them.

Paul treats both men as real historical figures.

Of course. It's quite possible to have allegories about real people.

 

[turnorburn]

That doesn't answer my question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I did answer your question, with Gods word not mans preconceived ideas

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Btw, are you an evolutionist or creationist?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Without a sun? This is why Christian thought of it as something other than a literal day.



No. I tend to go with the traditional interpretation that it's about categories of creation, not actual time periods.



Obviously, if it's a physical death God was speaking of, Adam would have been physically dead by the end of the day. But since he didn't die physically that day, we can know that the "death" was something else. And since God shows us in His creation that physical death existed long before Adam, that reinforces the point.



In the sense that I accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.



Right. And God is capable of focusing just on humans, not taking it out on innocent animals.



It's more than that. Reason plays a role in it, as Paul says:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

This is what the Church calls "natural law", that which all men know and understand. But there's more to it:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So, we are obligated (without excuse) to also see what God's creation will tell us of His works. So as Augustine said, we need to be aware that the authority of creation is also important and this authority cannot contradict scripture.



Of course. It's just that this is much more important than mere physical death.

Barbarian observes:
I'm very sure St. Paul knew exactly what that death was and what it was about.



Of course. It's quite possible to have allegories about real people.

Augustine was a man same as the rest of us Barbarian, we are all saints kings and priest in Gods eyes if we know Jesus Christ..

tob

*edit: forgot something "again"

you seem t think those scripture verify your argument, then tell us what does this mean?

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

[Sparkey]

No. I tend to go with the traditional interpretation that it's about categories of creation, not actual time periods.

You think that plants (grasses, herbs, fruits, trees and etc) were commanded into existence before the creation of the sun?

Tell me again how you think that could mesh with evolution. Feel free to go into as much detail as you like. I want to hear you clearly explain how plants evolved before the sun was made. Bonus points if you can prove your premise and quote scientific authorities who agree with you.

SPARROW's thought: . o O ((Categories of creation indeed. Harrumph! I can't wait to hear this one.))

 

[Sparkey]

Barb, contrary to your assertion that the bible is unclear and ambiguous, the length of time in question is clearly and unambiguously defined and reinforced in each case with the phrase, "And there was evening, and there was morning [the Xth day]". Yom, just like the word day in English is a very common word. Yom, just like the word day in English, only ever means an ordinary day when it is used in conjunction with a number.

Barb, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is your friend here. Because Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is so helpful, many online bibles have incorporated it right into the text. I'm one of the old fashioned guys who actually own the printed version but Strong's makes it easy to confirm what Henry Morris states in his book, The Genesis Record:

“The terms “evening” (Hebrew ereb) and “morning” (Hebrew boqer) each occur more than one hundred times in the Old Testament, and always have the literal meaning - that is, the termination of the daily period of light and the termination of the daily period of darkness, respectively. Similarly, the occurrence of “day” modified by a numeral (e.g., “third day”) is a construction occurring more than a hundred times in the Pentateuch alone, always with the literal meaning.​

Jonathan Sarfati's put his Strong's to good use while writing his book, Refuting Compromise. He tells us:

• Day, plus a Number is used 410 times (in plural or singular), and always means an ordinary day.
• Evening and Morning, together without Day, is used 28 times, and always means an ordinary day.
• Evening, or Morning, with Day, is used 23 times, and always means an ordinary day.
• Night, with Day, is used 52 times and always means an ordinary day

Now in comes Barbarian to say that the clear text and unambiguous declaration do not (does not?) refer to a period of time at all. We are told that the phrase is used to separate and delineate categories of creation without reference to time. Where exactly, if you don't mind, do you come with with such stuff??? The word YOM is used 2,008 times but never have I heard it translated as "category" except here by you.

Is it just me or is your argument falling apart here? First you declare the Bible, the very word of God, to be unclear and ambiguous. Then, in support of your false allegation, you try to refute the idea of a day being a day by saying that God didn't create the sun until the fourth day. What??? How can a day be anything other than a day if there is a fourth? Moses disagrees with you and says clearly that our calendar follows (was modeled after) the creation week. Again --we are speaking about time here.

But that's not all. From there you crawl out onto your limb and state that you, "tend to go with the traditional interpretation that it's about categories of creation, not actual time periods." And by "tradition" I take it to mean that you're talking about a doctrine that you believe to have divine authority even though it can not be found in the Scripture. So, what then? Shall I thank you for clearing that up for us? I think no.

 

[JohnD]

It remains true that mornings and evening without a sun to have them, would certainly tell us that these were not 24 hour days.

Not necessarily.

It just means God (unlike Motel 6) shut the light off. No interval mentioned other than morning / evening. Expressed later in scripture in many times conjunction with the seventh day sabbath. There is no reason to suggest other than a 7 day week of 24 hour days. The thousand year day in two verses define other prophecies about "days" (Hosea 6:2 for example). The weightier interpretation of creation week would fall on the 7, 24-hour day creation week interpretation.

 

[JohnD]

ICR pointed out that the attempt to marry the divine account of creation with the atheist account of evolution produces a falsified creation account wherein death WAS involved long before the Adam / Eve / myth / so-called event took place some 60,000 years ago.

Institute for Creation Research.

 

[JohnD]

I believe the Bible is God's eyewitness account dictated to his scribe Moses. That proves the creation adam / eve the global flood etc.