Jump to content


Photo

six days


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 07 July 2005 - 11:41 AM

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be  For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.

View Post


What do you make of Jesus' mention of Adam and Noah's flood?
Just curious. He seemed to think they were historical events.

#22 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 07 July 2005 - 11:44 AM

Well they certainly were, however that does not preclude them from being technically different than the account in Genesis.

#23 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 07 July 2005 - 01:07 PM

Well they certainly were, however that does not preclude them from being technically different than the account in Genesis.

View Post


Not trying to start anything - just trying to understand.

If they are historical events, why would they be recorded differently than what actually happened. After all, Moshe was a prophet - presumably the L-rd spoke with him about it?

I suppose it boils down to...I do not understand your logic. Could you explain in a bit more detail?
Thanks,
Will

#24 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 07 July 2005 - 03:48 PM

Because it is largely symbolic of what really happened, if Moses wrote down about evolution and a universe that is countless years old, no one would understand. More importantly it doesn't matter if they do understand, it's not really an important part of the Bible.

#25 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 July 2005 - 04:32 PM

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be  For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

View Post


I do not think this is a good basis to just dismiss Genesis 1 out-of-hand. The Hebrew is written as a historical account, not an allegorical one. I understand what you are saying about the physical parts of the "clock" not being formed until day four, but why does this preclude a 24-hour period of time beforehand? Why isn't it possible or reasonable that God was the Light before he created the sun on day 4?

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.


Why could life not survive without the sun and moon for one day? (the plants were created on day 3). If you accept the progressive creation position of millions of years crammed into each "day", then the problem is far worse, because that means the plants would need millions of years without the sun! How do progressive creationists “solve” this? They monkey with the text and claim the sun was really created on day 1!

Do you consider Adam & Eve as real, or allegorical?

Fred

#26 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 07 July 2005 - 06:03 PM

I do not believe it is a technically accurate account, I do believe it is accurate, but not technically accurate. If that makes any sense.

#27 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 July 2005 - 08:58 PM

I do not believe it is a technically accurate account, I do believe it is accurate, but not technically accurate. If that makes any sense.

View Post


This is something I'd like to pursue a little bit if you are interested. I'm curious what your stand is regarding Adman & Eve. Do you believe they were real, or allegorical?

#28 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:37 AM

Well, I think that is a tricky one. Adam and Eve may be allegorical, however I do believe they were real people. Since I do not believe in original sin(I do not believe it is literal based on my reading of Romans), I think it is really unimportant. And though they were referenced in the New Testament, that does not mean they are accurate, for example the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude.

I question the literal six days, because it is both unimportant to the whole, and because the reason that God would create the earth in six days is to show how we should work in our lives. I have no doubt that Genesis 1 is divinely inspired, but if the seven days are ltieral, why would God rest on the seventh? He has no reason to rest, except to set an example to man.

I think another important point is that even when we are talking about historical books, that does not mean they are the same kind of historical books we use today. For instance the genealogies of Christ differ in order to show different attributes of Christ.

#29 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 July 2005 - 11:18 PM

Since I do not believe in original sin(I do not believe it is literal based on my reading of Romans), I think it is really unimportant.


So my next question would be, why did Christ have to die for us? You probably know where this is heading based on the obvious answer to this question.

We do have very compelling evidence that it is important. Churches that no longer stand on Genesis are far more likely to have liberal theology. When you start to compromise on any part of God’s word, it puts you on a slippery slope to the next compromise, then the next, then to the next, and ultimately many of these churches end up denying even the resurrection! Churches that accept abortion, churches that allow H*mosexual pastors, churches that deny the resurrection (which means they are no longer Christian), all have one thing in common - they reject a literal, historical Genesis. They reject the very foundation of the Bible, a book that is quoted from and referred to more than any book in the Bible, a book that contains every major doctrine in the Bible – the law, the gospel, marriage, why we wear clothes, etc.

Psalms 11:3: If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?

I have no doubt that Genesis 1 is divinely inspired, but if the seven days are ltieral, why would God rest on the seventh? He has no reason to rest, except to set an example to man.


I agree, He has no reason to rest, so there must be a message here - He established the pattern for our work week as given in Exodus 20:9-11, a pattern that has carried forward to this day. If the days were not real but allegory, how do you explain this in light of Exodus 20:9-11?

Exodus 20:11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 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.

Finally, if the historical account in Genesis 1 is not really history but allegory, why should we believe the historical account of the resurrection? Why can’t that be allegory also? Hebrew scholars, many of whom are not religious and thus have no inherent bias, readily admit Genesis 1 was written as an historical account. I think it goes without saying that the resurrection was written as an historical account. How can we justify accepting one as history but not the other?

Fred

#30 Dolphin

Dolphin

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 09 July 2005 - 10:59 PM

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical.


Please explain this further Mikel. How does the text indicate allegory?

There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be  For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be.


Don’t understand the argument. The ancient writers didn’t think in these terms. The weren’t aware of planetary rotations. They viewed evenings and the end of day and mornings as the end of night.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.


That the sustainer of the sun and moon is not able to sustain life in the first few days of creation apart from the sun and moon is quite a difficult concept to grasp. There's got to be more to this. What is leading you to believe the writer is speaking allegorically?

#31 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 09 July 2005 - 11:36 PM

"Don’t understand the argument. The ancient writers didn’t think in these terms. The weren’t aware of planetary rotations. They viewed evenings and the end of day and mornings as the end of night."

His point is that in order for there TO BE a morning and evening like you say, there has to be a sun and moon. But this arguement is not really legitimate for a number of reasons.
A: There were no people around to say "Oh that wasn't really a day because I didn't see the sun come up." God told the first writer of Genesis, (probably Adam) that he had made it in six days.

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

Proving that A: There was day and night to start out at the beginning of the creation, AND,B: it was the FIRST day. If God says it was one day, then I'm gonna believe him. You can twist the text if you want, but God doesn't lie.

In the above verse, God establishes the basis for the rest of the creation. Every DAY thereafter were all referred to as THE SECOND DAY, THE THIRD DAY etc. Notice that it didn't change on THE FOURTH DAY when the lights were created. Interesting huh?

#32 Dolphin

Dolphin

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 10 July 2005 - 01:18 AM

His point is that in order for there TO BE a morning and evening like you say, there has to be a sun and moon.


Well being that the writer explicitly defines "day" in the prior sentence, as you point out, I'm assuming that wasn't his point. Perhaps it was.

Personally I'm trying to think of a better way God could have put it if He really did want to convey literal days. He mentioned evening and morning. He defined day and night. He even gave us a frame of reference in Ex. 20:10-11.

It seems the objection to literal days is not rooted in the text but in modern theories about the age and formation of universe—theories which deny contributions by a supernatural creator. I can certainly understand why deists and atheists would embrace such things, but am amazed and perplexed over how many very sincere devout christians do also.

#33 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2005 - 02:12 AM

Spiritual light has no need for the sun or the moon, because it comes from a spiritual being.

Revelation 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


God's light cannot have darkness.

1 John 1:
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


Being that it was the glory of God that shined upon the earth, cast no shadows, was the reason the first light had to be divided.

Genesis 1:
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


And when God's light was divided, the first day now come into the picture.

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.


But can the light that shines from God sustain life?

Revelation 21:
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.


Added:
And God set the bounderies for what a day will contain on the very first day. For is there any other time frame, that is known, that also contains these 4 parts of a day?

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.


The reason the four parts of the day are not really listed in order is that God see's in 4d, and can also see through solid objects (like seeing into our hearts). Because of this, He often refers to His creation from it's center point (the very center of the created object). God also likes to make references to opposites. Day being opposite of night, and evening being opposite of morning.

#34 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 12 July 2005 - 10:32 PM

Yeah, instead of people always saying, "Well how do you know it wasn't just a story that the writers of Genesis made up?" Why not ask them, is there a better way for God to tell us that he made it all in six days than to say "In six days God created the heaven and the earth"?

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:58 AM

Looks like the same old irreducible complexity (already debunked numerous times) with a dash of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Actually, he may be an otherwise good scientist.

View Post


Three things:

One - irreducible complexity has not been “debunked”, it has only been “disagreed with”, and is a very viable argument. Therefore your statement is a non sequitur.

Two – His argument is no more of an “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam” than your attempt at the refutation of it within the context of the OP. You speak from ignorance when it comes to creation, therefore, you, yourself, are arguing from ignorance (i.e. “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam” appealing to ignorance ).

Three – He shows in this offering, that he IS a good scientist, therefore your attempt at an ad Hominem abusive (he may be an otherwise good scientist), as a backhanded comment, is also a non sequitur.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 12:05 PM

I do not believe it is a technically accurate account, I do believe it is accurate, but not technically accurate. If that makes any sense.

View Post


The above poster is making his assertion entirely from a presupposed, or “a priori” stance, and not from any authority (either scientifically or linguistically). He has absolutely NO idea of the technical accuracy (again, either scientifically or linguistically) of that which he attempts to refute.

Further, the liureture is "written" as litteral, not metaphorical. Regardsless of the opinion of the skeptic, or liberial theologian.

#37 twinc

twinc

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Age: 80
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • BIRKENHEAD,UK

Posted 06 January 2011 - 04:32 PM

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be  For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.

View Post


why not, except to the mindset that is determined it knows better -what if the earth does not move but the sun does. a day consists of darkness and light viz evening and morning and as Christians we should know that God is light and Jesus Christ is the light of the world and the sun and moon were created on the fourth day to prove just that that is so - see Apoc/Rev.21:23 and 22:5 - btw why not six days it seems He can do it in an instant,in 6secs.6mins,6weeks,6months,6years,six hundred,thousands,millions,billions but not 6days - btw all things were created in an instant on each of six days - how about the forty days of the Flood and the three days of the resurrection - see www.scripturecatholic.com and www.DaylightOrigins.com re the six days of creation - twinc

#38 dmwessel

dmwessel

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 06 February 2011 - 09:33 PM

If it was a literal six days then Gen.2:4 would say days but instead it says 'day':

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."


The translation of 'day' in this verse is - ' to be hot'.

#39 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 February 2011 - 08:59 AM

I do not believe the 6 days are literal 24 hour days because the verses say, "there came to be evening and there came to be morning" or "There was evening and there was morning." That indicates less than 24 hours, and especially something other than a literal day, since it is said before the great luminaries are made.

#40 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 February 2011 - 09:02 AM

If it was a literal six days then Gen.2:4 would say days but instead it says 'day':

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
The translation of 'day' in this verse is - ' to be hot'.

View Post

Is not the same Hebrew word (yom) used in Genesis 2:4? How would it have a this meaning then?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users