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

[Barbarian]

ICR pointed out that the attempt to marry the divine account of creation with the atheist account of evolution

There is no atheist account of evolution. You might as well say "the atheist account of gravity."

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.

We know that is true. Death in the physical sense occurred long before Adam and Eve. We know that the death spoken of by God in Genesis was not a physical death, since He told Adam that it would happen the day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats and lives on for many years thereafter.

And why 60,000 years? Do you not think that other species of humans were human? Do you think God would love H. erectus less than us? I don't see why. We might think ourselves better than other hominins, but is there really a difference as far as God is concerned?

And of course, "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea, I think.

God doesn't really care if you accept the way He created things; it won't send you to Hell. If it mattered, He'd have made that very clear.

 

[Barbarian]

Augustine was a man same as the rest of us Barbarian

A man whose love of God and learning remains. And completely unsullied by evolutionary theory, he and his contemporaries generally accepted that the days of Genesis were not literal ones. Which is why he is highly respected by the three major branches of Christianity.

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.

Refers to idolatry. Nothing about creation. Indeed while man is not in the physical image of God, he is in his mind and soul like God. St. Paul was objecting to the practice of making an worshiping idols.

 

[turnorburn]

Absolutely correct idolatry and paganism, evolution grew out of pagan ideas, then you go on to say..

"Indeed while man is not in the physical image of God"

Gods word says

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

"the express image of his person"

tob

 

[Barbarian]

In His person, not His physical image; He has none, as Jesus says, a God is a spirit. and He says a spirit has no body.

Evolution was God's invention; evolutionary theory is our attempt to understand it. Pagans thought gods created each thing separately. Our God is much greater than that.

 

[turnorburn]

In His person, not His physical image; He has none, as Jesus says, a God is a spirit. and He says a spirit has no body.

Evolution was God's invention; evolutionary theory is our attempt to understand it. Pagans thought gods created each thing separately. Our God is much greater than that.

Oops' wrong again..

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

God has a face hands and hinder parts.. he showed himself 2000 years ago in the person of his son..

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Stop listening to men

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Jesus is a man, but also God. So, I'll go with His word.

 

[Edward]

...
And of course, "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea I think...

Ok, I'll bite, what do morning and evening mean?

H1242 (Morning)
בּקר
bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow/(E-Sword)

H6153 (Evening)
בּקר
bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow/(E-Sword)

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. But no dawn without a Sun. So we know, from the language itself, that the "yom", in Genesis do not mean literal days.

 

[Sparkey]

There is no atheist account of evolution. You might as well say "the atheist account of gravity."

I chuckled when I read this. Thanks.

And of course, "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea, I think.

Morning and Evening mark the transition periods. But looking deeper and considering the way they are used EVENING also speaks of "Previous States". It can imply falsity or no faith. A shade state where the light wanes. Morning speaks of "Subsequent States" being one of Light or Truth or the increasing knowledge that comes by faith. Morning is often an expression of new creation.
___________________________________________________________________

But let's get back to the flow of the conversation because I like what you said, Barb. I like it very muchy. Use that same logic with the word YOM and I think you will be getting somewhere. Wait, I'll do it for you:

And of course, YOM and DAY have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea, I think.

But if you want to challenge me and say that I am taking too much liberty, well ... okay. I would says yep. That's right enough. I am taking too much liberty. But as long as we have gone this far what's one more step? Right?

LOOK HERE: A holy one said, How long shall be the vision, the continual sacrifice, and the wasting transgressions? And he said to me, Until evening and morning two thousand three hundred; then shall the holy thing be justified (Daniel 8:13, 14)

As you have learned, Barbarian, changing meanings around isn't a bad idea at all. I might go as far as to say that it is necessary if we want to believe in evolution as taught today. OH! Maybe we can go with a traditional interpretation and declare that 'Morning and Evening' mean categories (and not actual time periods at all)?!? Or maybe not. I'll let you take it from there.

:wink Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

I love types and anti-types and the ways of symbolic reasoning. As we gain skill in thinking behind things or reading between the line it allows us to examine one thing while looking at another. It's important to remember that analogies line up in many ways but not every way. They can not line up in every way because if they did? They would not be analogous.

Ok, I'll bite, what do morning and evening mean?

Great question, Edward! :nod

So pardon me for this digression please but there is so much more to say about mornings and evenings --> and, well, it's hard for me to stop sometimes.

I've mentioned that evening signifies a change state; a transition. Evening in general brings light moving toward obscurity.

And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.

"Prepare war against her; arise, and let us attack at noon! Woe to us, for the day declines, for the shadows of evening lengthen! Arise, and let us attack by night and destroy her palaces!"

"Morning" signifies the LORD, and LOVE from Him, therefore the manna, which was heavenly bread, "rained down every morning" (Exod. 16:8, 12, 13, 21).
Jesus is that bread:
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
... 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
... 48 I am the bread of life.
... 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
... 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Jhn 6:33, 35, 48, 50-51 ESV)

I like analogies. It's my hope that we can all now better see what 'morning' means:

"Therefore stay awake--for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning-- lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake." [Mar 13:35-37 ESV]

 

[Barbarian]

The point is that logically, it produces no warping of logic or language to interpret the "days" as categories of creation, in a figurative sense, and it does produce those things if you try to interpret them as literal day.

So I go with the interpretation that does the least violence to reason. I was more of a fideist once, but after reading Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, it is clear to me that reason will demonstrate God as well as faith.

As I said, if it mattered, God would have been more specific, so I don't worry about it.

 

[Sparkey]

So it's okay to warp the meaning of YOM but it is not okay to re-interpret morning and evening? Your conundrum comes when you see that YOM is actually defined by `ereb (morning) and boqer (evening). We see the formula, "Evening + Morning == YOM [insert number here]" six (6) times in the first chapter of the Book of Beginnings (Genesis).

And of course, "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea, I think.

You're trying to force our mornings and evenings as we see them today onto what God meant when He spoke of the first "day" before He gave the command: "Let there be Light". God has no need of a compass, no need of a sextant, no need to consult the stars to determine lengths of time. "Let there be light"; and there was light (verse 3) carries with it the meaning that God's Word is inviolate. Do you really think that nature waited around before light burst out upon His command? We have light and technically speaking we then also have time (see the 1905 General Theory of Relativity for that one). It wasn't until verses 14 and 15 that we see the creation of the celestial luminaries.

"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

Contrary to what you've been trying to say with your 4th day argument, God does NOT need the sun to know how long a day is. He created them for us. So that WE would have them for signs, for seasons, for days and years.

I was more of a fideist once

Good that. You're moving in the right direction. Just try thinking that there can be multiple meanings or shades of meanings. Day, Morning and Evening mean so much more than the literal only. But that does not exclude the literal meaning which is the mistake that I see you making quite often.

So I go with the interpretation that does the least violence to reason

That's a very sound position. But we need to be careful because what I hear you say (behind the lines) is that you create meaning according to your thinking. Objectively, a day is a day. A morning is a morning. Bread is bread.

Let the day mean a single day and know that this can also be symbolic of something else. But we simply can't exchange literal meanings. Going around and telling the Wonder Bread people to stop being a Christ killer is just silly. So is saying that a day (or a week, if you'd rather) = billions of years. If it is possible to apply a literal meaning we are on more solid ground to do so.

The word PARAKALEO is formed from the word PARA meaning "alongside" and KALEO meaning "to call." I am suggesting that it is better to develop a habit of letting words have their primary meanings (without regard to our theories) and then also to call other possible interpretations alongside of them as needed. That way, the Creation Week is an actual week -AND- it may also mean a greater period of time. This allows us to remain true and match our thoughts (line them up) with the Word of Truth.

Speaking as an oracle of God or speaking 'ex cathedra' (if you'd rather) to declare that your interpretation is the only possible invites disagreement and in general is not edifying. In fact, unless you are specifically told to do this by God Himself, don't! Let the primary meanings of words remain true as the Apostles did. You can then show other possibilities alongside of them if you want.

I once heard a man preach and say, "There is only one passage in the Bible that mentions false teachers." But why would anybody say that? Was he trying to convince me that there was no danger? We (you and I) have often agreed that we are not talking about a salvation issue when we consider various theories regarding the age of the earth. But that does not mean that there is no danger or risk if or when we teach falsely. I try teach without modification what was said from ages past. If it can be shown that Jesus and the Apostles taught or believed the same and said the same. Solid ground. If we go out on a limb and start teaching something that has never even been mentioned in Scripture? Okay, maybe. It's okay if the Bible doesn't mention Pluto, for instance. That does not mean that we can't teach it as a planet if we want. But to say that God did not do as he clearly said (I'm talking about the Creation Week, not Pluto here -wink- ) or to say that He spoke in an unclear and ambiguous manner in order to then go away from the clear meaning and tell what should have been said or to force a new meaning that has NEVER been said by Jesus or the Apostles?? Shaky ground. That's all I'm trying to say, my friend.

I should thank you for your clarity of thought regarding death prior to Adam. You've taught me something there. Or maybe it's okay to say that you opened my eyes to an explanation that had evaded me in the past? In any case, I hope also to be able to someday communicate part of the reasoning behind my thinking here too. But when every word that I speak is hotly debated it feels like nobody is listening sometimes. You know?

 

[turnorburn]

Hi Sparrow, you said "we are not talking about a salvation issue when we consider various theories regarding the age of the earth" that's a half truth in this case. If your teacher says to you your salvation is at stake if you don't accept what i say then there's a bias, your faced with a choice, even if you believe what that teacher is saying isn't true.. Let me illustrate..

Your teacher says:

"young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy."

Faced with that statement what are you going to choose to be true?

tob

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, tob!

You are correct. There is always a danger when we speak in absolutes. I didn't mean to imply that false teaching has no danger or risk associated with it at all. It's like this: If I were to make a mistake --> shame on me. But if I were to make a mistake and then teach it to others? For that there will be greater krima (judgment). That's what James was talking about, but then, you already know.

I noticed that you quoted or paraphrased another member here. But Barbarian is not my teacher so he is in little danger as he speaks to me.

 

[turnorburn]

No Sparrow i wasn't referring to you, there is a teacher that actually said that.

tob

 

[Sparkey]

Yes. I know who you are talking about. I've read the thread. I don't recognize that teaching authority.

But I had another thought that I wanted to try to develop in line with our conversation here. If I were to say, "10,000 in 2015!" there could only be one thing that I was talking about. We could start to unravel the meaning by making the assumption that 2015 meant the year according to the Gregorian calendar. That's not too much of a leap. But that leaves the other part of the message that may still need to be interpreted. The 10,000 part.

So, if the message was to make sense it should be something that happened or will happen or is happening that will culminate at 10,000 this year. Somebody might come and guess, "It's the number of your spawn, you devil, you! You're predicting that you will have 10,000 followers by the end of the year." And to that I might reply, "Huh?"

No. It would be (and I say, could only be) my post count that I was in reference to. Now bear with me as I try to bring this back toward our subject. My point is that when we have a very limited amount of information our choices for interpretation loom large. If we were to narrow our search so far down such that we are examining only a very few words there will necessarily be many things that could be meant. BUT if there are definitions given within the message? Then we simply can not, may not, shall not toss them aside in preference of our applied meaning. If I defined my message, "10,000 in 2015," to clarify it to mean specifically 'my post count here on CF' -- then who, but me, could say differently?

Now we may look again. The Yom that our Father spoke of in Gen 1 is defined in terms of a single morning and a single evening which taken together are one day.

And of course, "morning" and "evening" have specific meanings, dependent on a Sun to have them If you re-interpret them to mean something else, then the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is a bad idea, I think.

Our teacher is the Holy Spirit. He wants and actually insists on the unity of the faith. We have been taught to speak the truth in kindness; to sow in peace. What plant can grow where the ground is scorched by violence?

 

[Sparkey]

But Sparrow, but Sparrow! The sun wasn't around until the forth (4th) day!!! "There was NO SUN, there was no sun," said Henny Penny.

Okay. Let's give you that. The meaning of a day and our notion of time might fluctuate prior to the sun having been created. It didn't (strike that. "I don't think it did," is better.) But let's grant that it did for the sake of the argument. And, since I'm in a generous mood, let's also apply a "traditional" view of the days in Gen 1 to mean categories of creation. That means an almost eternity of time (from our perspective, not God's heavenly perspective) could have passed as the first three days or categories of creation occurred. It took millions or billions or heck, trillions of years for the heavens, dark and light, the sky (atmosphere?), dry land and plant life to come into existance. But then...

Then the object of Henny Penny's objection, "There was no sun, there was NO SUN," vanishes along with any sense that this line of thought seemed to have. Abruptly we now have a SUN and we now must apply the very specific and very clear definitions as given. One morning. One evening. 4th Day. So there were only 36 hours (2,160 minutes to be precise) between the creation of the sun and the creation of man.

Billions or trillions or quadrillions before the sun. 36 hours after. This kind of thing is what stretches credulity. Is it not? I personally like consistency and try to remain faithful to the intent of the author of the work and the unadulterated meaning of HIS word especially when I teach. Am I making a mistake to do so? What do you think?

 

[turnorburn]

I've always found it easier to accept Gods word and leave mans wisdom at the doorstep..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Jesus turned water into wine in an instant, man can turn water into wine but it takes time lots of time, when we pull God down to our level of creating something through our "preconceived idea" thinking process we've taken away his glory, the world we live in isn't out to give God the glory for anything..

tob

 

[Sparkey]

Okay. Lol -- you asked for it:

"young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy."

To be clear, that was a quote that our member turnorburn spoke of and NOT his words but still....

Tantamount to blasphemy?!? There is no tantamount. Either a thing is blasphemous or it is not. There is no grey area there. Blasphemy includes the act of speaking sacrilegiously or speaking in a profane manner about something sacred.

Can we agree that blasphemy is blasphemy and a day is a day and that it's probably not a good idea to get poor sparrow all wound up. He did just undergo a double bypass and there is a statistical risk for at least a year after. Right? Tantamount to blasphemy indeed. Harrumph! But blasphemy or not -- it's not a salvation issue. I heard somebody say (and maybe you did too), "All blasphemy shall be forgiven..."