Before You Sign On To OEC , better read the fine print

[jordanriver]

Sure it sounds reasonable with the opening presentation. Days can be day ages. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is just another way of say 'great big long time'
And what does it matter if the universe was around 13 to 15 billion years before God created Adam and Eve.
And what does it matter if the earth was around for about 4.5 billion years before God created Adam and Eve and then created a garden paradise for their habitation where nobody died or got sick and the critters didn't try to eat eachother; it was like Rodney King land where we could all just get along.
And what does it matter if after those billions of years of earth and universe that the Bible timeline kicks in, A&E get kicked out of paradise, their descendants become wicked 24/7 and God wipes out all flesh with a flood that had so much water it covered all the high hills.

But wait. The OEC probably didn't tell you about the rest of the requirements (or perhaps he muttered them or read through the disclaimers rather quickly.

You can forget about Adam and Eve being created by God. They're metaphors. Thats right, you share a common ancestor with monkeys and eventually weeds and fungus (if you go back far enough) (theres plenty of time for that with OEC)

And you can forget about the Noachian Flood. There's no evidence for it for the OEC.

Basically , you can forget about the Bible. You can interpret it without opening the cover. Creation will tell you all you need to know about God.

JR

[oxmixmudd]

Sure it sounds reasonable with the opening presentation. Days can be day ages. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is just another way of say 'great big long time'
And what does it matter if the universe was around 13 to 15 billion years before God created Adam and Eve.
And what does it matter if the earth was around for about 4.5 billion years before God created Adam and Eve and then created a garden paradise for their habitation where nobody died or got sick and the critters didn't try to eat eachother; it was like Rodney King land where we could all just get along.
And what does it matter if after those billions of years of earth and universe that the Bible timeline kicks in, A&E get kicked out of paradise, their descendants become wicked 24/7 and God wipes out all flesh with a flood that had so much water it covered all the high hills.

But wait. The OEC probably didn't tell you about the rest of the requirements (or perhaps he muttered them or read through the disclaimers rather quickly.

You can forget about Adam and Eve being created by God. They're metaphors. Thats right, you share a common ancestor with monkeys and eventually weeds and fungus (if you go back far enough) (theres plenty of time for that with OEC)

And you can forget about the Noachian Flood. There's no evidence for it for the OEC.

Basically , you can forget about the Bible. You can interpret it without opening the cover. Creation will tell you all you need to know about God.

JR

You are really getting desperate, aren't you?

BTW, the distinction between OEC and TE is typically over the issue of evolution. OEC's typically believe in a literal Adam and Eve, miraculously created, not evolved, and in the miraculous creation of life along the way - although the may accept a limited amount of evolutionary change over time for non-human life. They also tend to believe in a literal Noah's flood - albeit local. They do accept an ancient Earth and Universe.

So if you are going to malign a particular point of view, at least understand the primary elements of that point of view.


Jim

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm OEC. I treat Adam and Eve as real historical persons that lived at a specific time and place even if the time is not necessarily pinpointed.

I believe in a flood and I believe it was local.

I agree with Oxmixmudd. Learn something about a worldview before you denounce it. Hugh Ross, one of the leading writers for OEC, can sign a statement in a real Adam and Eve and in a local flood.

You have only revealed your ignorance on this one.

[KBertsche]

You can forget about Adam and Eve being created by God. They're metaphors. Thats right, you share a common ancestor with monkeys and eventually weeds and fungus (if you go back far enough) (theres plenty of time for that with OEC)
Most who call themselves OEC don't take this position. What you describe is TE (theistic evolution).


And you can forget about the Noachian Flood. There's no evidence for it for the OEC.
Many OEC's do believe in the Flood of Noah. We just don't believe that it covered the entire globe.


Basically , you can forget about the Bible. You can interpret it without opening the cover. Creation will tell you all you need to know about God.

JR
The things you mentioned above are not topics "about God", they are about topics about the origins of the physical world. Rather than claiming that "Creation will tell you all you need to know about God," you seem to be claiming that "the Bible will tell you all you need to know about nature." This is equally fallacious.

Paul tells us the purpose of the Bible, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15).

[Sparko]

just a reminder: This area of tweb is for discussion about OEC and YEC CREATIONISM. It is NOT for discussing Theistic Evolution.

So don't go there.

If you would like me to move this to another area, let me know.

[jordanriver]

Most who call themselves OEC don't take this position. What you describe is TE (theistic evolution).


Many OEC's do believe in the Flood of Noah. We just don't believe that it covered the entire globe.


The things you mentioned above are not topics "about God", they are about topics about the origins of the physical world. Rather than claiming that "Creation will tell you all you need to know about God," you seem to be claiming that "the Bible will tell you all you need to know about nature." This is equally fallacious.

Paul tells us the purpose of the Bible, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15).

For the record, I do not claim the Bible will tell anybody all they need to know about nature.

Do you speak for the other OECs. I didn't think I was describing theistic evolution. Isnt that the evolution thats guided by God? In my experience, the OECs I have crossed paths with believe like Ken Miller that the evolution was not designed .

But speak for yourself. Do we share a common ancestor with other species or are you really a Biblical creationist who accepts that God created the first human without biological parents.


You claim you believe in Noah's flood but it wasn't global. I would personally reject that by saying thats some other flood you beleive in because Noah's Biblical flood was global, but we'll get nowhere with that argument , i wont concede and i am sure you wont concede so lets not bother on that particular point.

JR

[jordanriver]

I'm OEC. I treat Adam and Eve as real historical persons that lived at a specific time and place even if the time is not necessarily pinpointed.

I believe in a flood and I believe it was local.

I agree with Oxmixmudd. Learn something about a worldview before you denounce it. Hugh Ross, one of the leading writers for OEC, can sign a statement in a real Adam and Eve and in a local flood.

You have only revealed your ignorance on this one.

OK.
Are your real historical persons (Adam and Eve) the ones described in Genesis. Was your Eve created from one of Adam's ribs and is your historical-person Adam a creation from the ground or a bioligical offspring of another mammal.

I also believe in local floods, lots of them. But .......

nevermind that argument, been there done it.

How about me. I don't care if the universe is billions of years old or if the Earth has been around for over 4 billion years.

But I accept the story Moses tells that Adam was created from the materials of the ground instead being related to the other primates. And I accept the story Moses tells that Eve also is not the offspring of some other primates but was created from Adam's ribs.

IOW, human history began about 6,000 years ago no matter what was going on outside the garden paradise that Moses claims God planted for Adam and Eve, and no matter for how long a time that events were taking place outside that supernaturally (supernaturally since "God did it") created Paradise/Garden of Eden.

I accept the story Moses tells about Noah's flood and how it covered all the high hills and killed all flesh (except for the survivors on Noah's Ark) and I accept the Biblical timeline based on the claims of the writers of how long the descendants lived up to the times of David, Solomon and eventually Christ, IOW, about 4500 years ago for that supernaturally ("God did it") caused flood.

So, am I a YEC or OEC or what.

JR

[ApologiaPhoenix]

OK.
Are your real historical persons (Adam and Eve) the ones described in Genesis. Was your Eve created from one of Adam's ribs and is your historical-person Adam a creation from the ground or a bioligical offspring of another mammal.

Yes. You're confusing us with Theistic Evolutionists. I only believe in microevolution which is observable and happens in real time.


I also believe in local floods, lots of them. But .......

Do you believe in one that lasted 40 days and 40 nights and flooded the Mesopotamian area and took around a year for the waters to recede? I do. Lots of those don't happen.


nevermind that argument, been there done it.

Not interested in dialogue?


How about me. I don't care if the universe is billions of years old or if the Earth has been around for over 4 billion years.

I don't want to tell you what you believe, unlike what you plan to do with me. (My roommate and a good friend of ours are both OEC as well and they were stunned when they heard what you said.)


But I accept the story Moses tells that Adam was created from the materials of the ground instead being related to the other primates. And I accept the story Moses tells that Eve also is not the offspring of some other primates but was created from Adam's ribs.

So do I.


IOW, human history began about 6,000 years ago no matter what was going on outside the garden paradise that Moses claims God planted for Adam and Eve, and no matter for how long a time that events were taking place outside that supernaturally (supernaturally since "God did it") created Paradise/Garden of Eden.

I don't believe that the Garden of Eden was paradise. It was great! It was better than things now! It was not Heaven though. Also, it does not follow that this was 6,000 years ago. There are gaps in the genealogies after all.

Let me ask you this. You believe things were perfect in every way with no animals even eating each other before the fall....

Did God make lions, tigers, and bears (Oh my!) carnivores before the fall? The digestive system of carnivores is quite different from that of herbivores.

Or do you believe that some form of hyper-evolution changed the make-up of these creatures entirely?


I accept the story Moses tells about Noah's flood and how it covered all the high hills and killed all flesh (except for the survivors on Noah's Ark) and I accept the Biblical timeline based on the claims of the writers of how long the descendants lived up to the times of David, Solomon and eventually Christ, IOW, about 4500 years ago for that supernaturally ("God did it") caused flood.

No. You accept your interpretation of it. I accept what Moses wrote also and it fits in just fine with a local flood. The flood was local in range but universal in scope so that it could cover all the high hills.

Let me ask you this about that, when it says that all the world went to their hometowns so they could be taxed during the census that had the birth of Christ in it, where did China and Australia go?

By the way, why do you say 4,500 years ago here when above it was 6,000 years? Where'd that extra 1,500 years go?

[QUOTE]So, am I a YEC or OEC or what.


Bluntly, you're essentially clueless. I don't know a single OEC who thinks the way you've made out here. You're assuming anyone who believes in an old Earth automatically seems to allegorize all of the creation account in the Bible and must believe in macroevolution.

It's not so and it's a shame to speak out on a worldview like that when you're ignorant of the basic facts.

[jordanriver]

By the way, why do you say 4,500 years ago here when above it was 6,000 years? Where'd that extra 1,500 years go?

.

The '4500 years ago' is on the Biblical flood topic.

I admit I don't have any clues about the gaps in genealogies (i guess then i would be technically clueless on that area) , and I've looked in the Bible, so can you tell me where they are.

IOW, for example there seems to be an unbroken lineage from Adam to Solomon, how long the ancestors lived, ......so which time is the Bible wrong about naming one person as the son of another person. Or is the Bible wrong about how long they were alive.

IOW, for example, where it says "And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech" ( Genesis 4:18 ) andiit says Enoch was 65 when he begat Methusael and it says Methusael was 187 when he begat Lamech and it says Lamech was 182 when he begat a son he called Noah,

are there any missing sons in that group for example.
IOW, when the Bible says Methusael begat Lamech, did Methusael actual begat somebody else who begat somebody else who begat somebody else who begat somebody else who eventually begat Lamech?

Or, perhaps you know of a missing batch between the Biblical lineage from Noah to Abram/Abraham. Is the Bible wrong that Noah was around 500 years old when he begat Shem, or is the Bible wrong when it says Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, or is the Bible wrong about Arphaxad being 35 ( a youngster here) when he begat Salah, or is the Bible wrong where it says that that Salah was 30 when he begat Eber, or is the Bible wrong when it says Eber was about 34 when he begat Peleg.

Do you know of somebody missing in between those begats? If so, where do you get that information and can I get a copy too.

And where it states in Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: appearing to give us readers a time-marker after the flood, is that just a copy-error or is "two years" really a metaphor again (is this another example of day ages or year ages where years really mean eons )

How about the Biblical lineage Moses wrote after Peleg, Peleg being 30 begats Reu, Reu being 32 when he begat Serug, or Serug being 30 when he begat Nahor, or Nahor being 29 when he begat Terah, or Terah being 70 when he begat Abram.

To me it looks like the Bible is saying Peleg was the biological father of Reu and Reu was the biological father of Serug and Serug was the biological father of Nahor and Nahor was the biological father of Terah and Terah was the biological father of Abram.


But , as you have pointed out, I am without the clues that others like yourself posess.

Would you be so kind as to share a clue here and inform me as to which of those 'begats' may be incorrect.

IOW, is it possible for example that Moses is wrong and say, Peleg didn't really begat Reu, but instead begat somebody else who begat somebody else who begat somebody else and eventually we get to Rue?


Can I get a clue

can i buy a vowel?



JR

[disciple100]

Hi! I'm a YEC, I am no expert here, (not that I would be confused with one :teeth: ), but for the creation days in Genesis, I think they are days as the ancients would understand days to be, the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again. According to this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ) specifically here ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions#fnList_1_1 ) is an excerpt for those 'days':


The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t, the context makes this clear.

The context of Genesis 1clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14in relation to the heavenly bodies.

The genealogies of Genesis 5and 11 make it clear that the creation days happened only about 6,000 years ago. It is transparent from the genealogies of Genesis 5and 11 (which give very detailed chronological information, unlike the clearly abbreviated genealogy in Matthew 1and other chronological information in the Bible that the Creation Week took place only about 6,000 years ago.

Exodus 20:9–11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:9-11).
This passage gives the reason for God’s command to Israel to work six days and then take a sabbath rest. Yom is used in both parts of the commandment. If God meant that the Jews were to work six days because He created over six long periods of time, He could have said that using one of three indefinite Hebrew time words. He chose the only word that means a literal day, and the Jews understood it literally (until the idea of millions of years developed in the early nineteenth century). For this reason, the day-age view or framework hypothesis must be rejected. The gap theory or any other attempt to put millions of years before the six days are also false because God says that in six days He made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So He made everything in those six literal days and nothing before the first day.

Noah’s Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6–9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark’s purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and seven of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was totally unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals, and birds could have migrated out of the flood zone before it occurred, or the zone could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated “the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth’s surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Noah’s Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

Jesus was a young-earth creationist. Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the “beginning of creation,” not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s teaching on death and on the character of God. Genesis 1says six times that God called the creation “good,” and when He finished creation on Day 6, He called everything “very good.” Man and animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Gen. 1:29–30, plants are not “living creatures,” as people and animals are, according to Scripture). But Adam and Eve sinned, resulting in the judgment of God on the whole creation. Instantly Adam and Eve died spiritually, and after God’s curse they began to die physically. The serpent and Eve were changed physically and the ground itself was cursed (Genesis 3:14–19). The whole creation now groans in bondage to corruption, waiting for the final redemption of Christians (Romans 8:19–25) when we will see the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21,Colossians 1:20) to a state similar to the pre-Fall world, when there will be no more carnivorous behavior (Isaiah11:6–9) and no disease, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:3–5) because there will be no more Curse (Revelation 22:3). To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can’t prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but still calls it all “very good.”

The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts. This idea of long ages was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These men used antibiblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit “deep time” into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments, and they did not defend their views by careful Bible study. The “deep time” idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations.

Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years to thousands of years, confirming the Bible.


And here's a bit from this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp ) that talks about how the god of an old earth is very different from the God of the Bible.

:b_rotten:

Remember post length considerations. Please see our campus decorum for more information. Thanks!

[rogue06]

Hi! I'm a YEC, I am no expert here, (not that I would be confused with one :teeth: ), but for the creation days in Genesis, I think they are days as the ancients would understand days to be, the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again. According to this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ) specifically here ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions#fnList_1_1 ) is an excerpt for those 'days':



And here's a bit from this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp ) that talks about how the god of an old earth is very different from the God of the Bible.

:b_rotten:

Hi D100, and a belated welcome to Tweb. Just two quick points here.

Some of the “days” of the Creation occurred prior to the creation of the Sun hence making a definition of a day as being “the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again” a tad untenable here.

Second the claim that when the word “yom” is modified with a number it always indicates literal days is nonsensense. For example, the Hebrew phrase of Zech. 14:7 ("yom echad" equals "one day") is identical to that used in Gen. 1:5. Hosea 6:2 provides another instance. KBertsche explains this in a bit more detail in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2410542#post2410542)

I can easily raise similar points for the other assertions made in your post but I think these two should suffice in demonstrating that this subject isn’t nearly as cut and dried as you’ve been led to believe.

[lfellows]

Forgive my butting in here please.


Hi D100, and a belated welcome to Tweb. Just two quick points here.

Some of the “days” of the Creation occurred prior to the creation of the Sun hence making a definition of a day as being “the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again” a tad untenable here.

Who defined day as the 'time it takes the sun to come up and go down'? All that is required to mark a day is light and dark periods. God created light on day one.



Second the claim that when the word “yom” is modified with a number it always indicates literal days is nonsensense. For example, the Hebrew phrase of Zech. 14:7 ("yom echad" equals "one day") is identical to that used in Gen. 1:5. Hosea 6:2 provides another instance.
Your examples do not support your claim. In each case literal days are being referred to.

[disciple100]

Forgive my butting in here please.



Who defined day as the 'time it takes the sun to come up and go down'? All that is required to mark a day is light and dark periods. God created light on day one.

Your examples do not support your claim. In each case literal days are being referred to.
I apologize, I did not mean to confuse, I know the sun was not initially there, I was just saying that I believe that the days were actual 'days'. But I think lfellows said it best. And thanks fot the belated welcome rogue06 :teeth:

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

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

that pretty much describes the 'day'. :teeth:

[oxmixmudd]

Forgive my butting in here please.



Who defined day as the 'time it takes the sun to come up and go down'? All that is required to mark a day is light and dark periods. God created light on day one.

Your examples do not support your claim. In each case literal days are being referred to.

The Zechariah passage refers to 'one day' whose length is known only to the lord, for there is neither day nor night to define it so man can know. It is not a 'literal' day as in 24 hours. Read the entire context.

The supports the idea that

(1) there are 'days' whose length is defined by the Lord, not the markers used by men.
(2) the construct used to describe such a day is the same as that used in Genesis 1:5

The Hosea passage is a passage speaking of the return of Israel to their God (at least from the Christian POV) which has parallel application in the death and resurrection of Christ. However, in no way are these days simple 24 hour periods in context, they refer to a period of time which many liken to the current 2000 year 'time of the gentiles' prophetically. (Just do a web search on Hosea 6). But they are, regardless of a Judaic or Christian approach to their interpretation, NOT 24 hour days.

All through Hosea we see day being used to mean time periods greater than 24 hours, and this construct, again, is like the one in Genesis.


Jim

ETA: What both of these passages show is that the proper interpretation of 'day' is not defined by some ad hoc grammatical rule, but by the context of the text.

[rogue06]

Forgive my butting in here please.
No problem, this is an open forum.


Who defined day as the 'time it takes the sun to come up and go down'? All that is required to mark a day is light and dark periods. God created light on day one.
That is a quote from D100's opening sentence. The definition of day that most YECs insist on is that a day in Genesis 1 equals a literal 24 hour day. Such a measurement is based upon the existence of a Sun. A Sun that did not exist until "mid-week." Any reference to a day before this time and how long that day was is purely speculative. Several of the early Church Fathers recognized this and rejected the idea that these days represented literal 24 hour days because of it.


Your examples do not support your claim. In each case literal days are being referred to.
You are correct only if you hold that the Day of the Lord (the context of Zech 7) represents a literal 24 hour day rather than an indistinct period of time. :smile:

[disciple100]

No problem, this is an open forum.


That is a quote from D100's opening sentence. The definition of day that most YECs insist on is that a day in Genesis 1 equals a literal 24 hour day. Such a measurement is based upon the existence of a Sun. A Sun that did not exist until "mid-week." Any reference to a day before this time and how long that day was is purely speculative. Several of the early Church Fathers recognized this and rejected the idea that these days represented literal 24 hour days because of it.


You are correct only if you hold that the Day of the Lord (the context of Zech 7) represents a literal 24 hour day rather than an indistinct period of time. :smile:
when did the early church fathers decide that? :huh:

[disciple100]

Here's an excerpt from this site ( http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5450/ )


(extracted and adapted from chapter 2 of the Creation Answers Book)

The ‘framework hypothesis’ is probably the favourite view among respectability-craving seminaries that say they accept biblical authority but not six ordinary days of creation.

It is strange, if the literary framework were the true meaning of the text, that no-one interpreted Genesis this way until Arie Noordtzij in 1924. Actually it’s not so strange, because the leading framework exponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admitted that their rationale for this bizarre, novel interpretation was a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

For example, Kline admitted in his major framework article, ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation “week” propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article.’1

And Blocher said, ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ And he further admits that he rejects the plain teaching of Scripture because, ‘The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerable bravado.’2

Clearly, the framework idea did not come from trying to understand Genesis, but from trying to counter the view, held by scholar and layman alike for 2,000 years, that Genesis records real events in real space and time.3


Genesis is, without any doubt whatsoever, most definitely written as historical narrative. Hebrew uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1–11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc., which no one claims is ‘poetry’ or not meant to be taken as history. Genesis is not poetry or allegory.

Genesis is peppered with ‘And … and … and … ’ which characterises historical writing (this is technically called the ‘vav—ו, often rendered as waw—consecutive’).

The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history or a series of past events. That is, only the first verb in a sequence of events is perfect (qatal), while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfects (vayyiqtols).4 In Genesis 1, the first verb, bara (create), is perfect, while the subsequent verbs are imperfect.5 A proper translation in English recognises this Hebrew form and translates all the verbs as perfect (or past) tense.


Genesis 1–11 also has several other hallmarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs. These are not translated into English (e.g. Hebrew ‘et’ in Genesis 1:1). Terms are often carefully defined. Also, parallelisms, a feature of Hebrew poetry (e.g. in many Psalms), are almost absent in Genesis.6

The rare pieces of poetry (e.g. Genesis 1:27 and 2:23) comment on real events anyway, as do many of the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 78). But if Genesis were really poetic, the whole book would look like these rare verses and it doesn’t.

Advocates of the Framework idea argue that because Genesis 2 is (they say) arranged topically rather than chronologically, so is Genesis 1. Therefore, they argue, the days are ‘figurative’ rather than real days. But this is like arguing that because the gospel of Matthew is arranged topically, then the gospel of Luke is not arranged chronologically.

It is also logical (and in line with ancient near eastern literary practice) to have an historical overview (chapter 1) preceding a recap of the details (chapter 2) about certain events already mentioned. Chapter 2 does not have the numbered sequence of days that chapter 1 has, so how can it determine how we view chapter 1?

Hebrew scholars concur that Genesis was written as history. For example, the Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr wrote:

‘ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’7

Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, did not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew writer clearly intended to be understood. Some criticize our use of the Barr quote, because he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis. That is precisely why we use his statement: he is a hostile witness. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he does not see it as carrying any authority, Barr is free to state the clear intention of the author. This contrasts with some ‘evangelical’ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing it says much, if anything, about history—’wrestling with the text’, we’ve heard it called.

Be mindful of fair-use when citing from copyrighted sources. Please refer to our forum rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_copyright) if you have any questions.

[rogue06]

when did the early church fathers decide that? :huh:

There never has been an official Christian position on this matter so I guess you can say that it was never "decided." But here are a few examples:

“Thus, in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies.” --St. Augustine, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis,” speaking of interpreting the Creation days in the literal sense. Augustine also wrote that, “There is no way of preserving the first chapters of Genesis without impiety, and attributing things to God unworthy of Him.” in his “De Genesi ad Manichaeos.”

Basically Augustine, along with St. Hilary, favored an instanteneous creation as evidenced by remarks made by Martn Luther in his lectures on Genesis back in 1535: "Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days.” Luther disagreed with their position.

Origen almost sounds like a mocking atheist when he wrote in his De Principiis: “What man of sense will argue with the statement that the first, second and third days, which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like a husbandman?… I believe every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed.” IOW: Origen saw the days in an allegorical sense.

Clement of Alexandria thought the creation occurred outside of time and hence not during a literal six days. For instance he wrote in “Miscellanies": “And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.” Clement also wrote, “That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth.’ For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.”

And to wrap it up, several Early Church Fathers (ECFs) held that the days of creation lasted 1000 years each including St Cyprian ("As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand years…” ), Irenaeus. Justin Martyr, and Victorinus.

Both Aquinas, and as mentioned, Luther spoke of the differing opinions the ECFs held concerning this matter which seems to demonstrate that if this were as cut and dry as groups like AiG contend such disparity of views as those voiced by Augustine, Hilary, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Victorinus would be inexplicable.

[Faramir]

Maybe someone should rename the thread:

Before your Critique OEC, better read the HORKING BIG print.

[KBertsche]

Hi! I'm a YEC, I am no expert here, (not that I would be confused with one :teeth: ), but for the creation days in Genesis, I think they are days as the ancients would understand days to be, the time it takes for the sun to come up, go down, and come up again. According to this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ) specifically here ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions#fnList_1_1 ) is an excerpt for those 'days':



And here's a bit from this site ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp ) that talks about how the god of an old earth is very different from the God of the Bible.

:b_rotten:
The AIG excerpts that you posted are greatly overstated. AIG authors start by signing a statement of faith locking them into a particular a-priori interpretation of Genesis, thus are unable to interpret in an objective, open-minded way. For another perspective, I would recommend the book by Marston, "Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages" (http://www.lifesway.net/understanding_the_biblical_creation_passages.html).

Note also that even if the text does mean to imply literal, 24 hour days, this does not necessarily imply YEC. There are a number of OEC views that incorporate 24-hour days:
1) the gap theory (the account being a re-creation after a long period of earth history)
2) non-contiguous days (huge gaps between each of 6 24-hour days)
3) the days are presented as 24-hour days within a non-literal, literary account (some Framework folks would hold this)
4) the days are 24-hour days within a mythical story (some TEs may hold this)

[disciple100]

Well, let me ask you this, what exactly was going on during those first three days? The problem I have with OEC (that is, the version where people believe millions or billions of years took place before mankind) is what would be going on? Some Christians believe that evolution took place and then when man reached a certain state God intervened. If that's the case, what were the animals doing? Sitting around? Not eating eachother?

I'm wondering which type of OEC is being talked about here? Because I don't want to just start making generalizations.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, like I said I am no expert, but things like the gap theory seem to me to have serious gaps themselves. I would consider the Creation of the Earth to be a miraculous event. Another would be the Flood. A global Flood would explain how the Grand Canyon formed so quickly in the YEC, and sudden burial of the dinosaurs would explain the well preserved fossils, etc.

Why would it not be feasible for God to create the world in six days? Also, I am sorry if I make it sound 'cut and dry', though one could say that OEC followers do the same. OEC sounds more like a way to reconcile Christianity with Science. I like how N. T. Wright put it, "Science studies the repeatable, History studies the unrepeatable." There is only one first time for everything.

I can understand differing opinions on the issue, just because something is not mentioned does mean it did not happen, it just was not relevant to the author, so really there is no definite answer here. I just think, based on the evidence we do have, that YEC seems more likely than OEC.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, let me ask you this, what exactly was going on during those first three days? The problem I have with OEC (that is, the version where people believe millions or billions of years took place before mankind) is what would be going on? Some Christians believe that evolution took place and then when man reached a certain state God intervened. If that's the case, what were the animals doing? Sitting around? Not eating eachother?

I'm wondering which type of OEC is being talked about here? Because I don't want to just start making generalizations.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, like I said I am no expert, but things like the gap theory seem to me to have serious gaps themselves. I would consider the Creation of the Earth to be a miraculous event. Another would be the Flood. A global Flood would explain how the Grand Canyon formed so quickly in the YEC, and sudden burial of the dinosaurs would explain the well preserved fossils, etc.

Why would it not be feasible for God to create the world in six days? Also, I am sorry if I make it sound 'cut and dry', though one could say that OEC followers do the same. OEC sounds more like a way to reconcile Christianity with Science. I like how N. T. Wright put it, "Science studies the repeatable, History studies the unrepeatable." There is only one first time for everything.

I can understand differing opinions on the issue, just because something is not mentioned does mean it did not happen, it just was not relevant to the author, so really there is no definite answer here. I just think, based on the evidence we do have, that YEC seems more likely than OEC.

Based on the evidence we have, a world and a universe >6000 years old is the more likely. I mean, it is as solid a conclusion as anyone can get about anything. The issues you seem to have are more in the theological/philosophical realm - which generally is where this debate has its origins anyway. There is no objective physical reason to think the world or universe is young, and there are libraries full of reasons to think it is old.

What would God be doing in all that 'time'? Well, first of all realize time for God is not time for us. 1000 years is as yesterday, as a watch in the night for Him the Psalmist says in 90:4. So if he decided to let the universe and the Earth follow a natural course to the preparation needed for our current story (the story of redemption in Christ) to play out, it is of no consequence. Also, as for death before the fall, that is an issue most OEC and TE's accept as reality. And I can give you quite a few reasons it is a bit silly (based on the Biblical text itself) to presume nothing died before the fall.

Jim

[disciple100]

The AIG excerpts that you posted are greatly overstated. AIG authors start by signing a statement of faith locking them into a particular a-priori interpretation of Genesis, thus are unable to interpret in an objective, open-minded way. For another perspective, I would recommend the book by Marston, "Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages" (http://www.lifesway.net/understanding_the_biblical_creation_passages.html).

Note also that even if the text does mean to imply literal, 24 hour days, this does not necessarily imply YEC. There are a number of OEC views that incorporate 24-hour days:
1) the gap theory (the account being a re-creation after a long period of earth history)
2) non-contiguous days (huge gaps between each of 6 24-hour days)
3) the days are presented as 24-hour days within a non-literal, literary account (some Framework folks would hold this)
4) the days are 24-hour days within a mythical story (some TEs may hold this)
Just to let you know, I just finished reading the e-Book of that. It was an interesting read.

Basically what I get from it that we just don't know how old the earth is, whether it be 6000 or more. (Though where we get the concept that 6000 is not a long time is beyond me.) I still say the earth is considerably younger than 'billions'. For one thing the method of dating is severely flawed, at one time the scientists thought that despite different conditions the decay of carbon et al would remain constant, but we know that is not true.

Also I got that it doesn't really matter, apparently it didn't to the writer. I thought the bit about instantaneous creation was interesting. But I think it would be more likely that all the different 'kinds' were created separately, rather than us and all the other animals sharing a common ancestor.

:teeth:

[KBertsche]

For one thing the method of dating is severely flawed, at one time the scientists thought that despite different conditions the decay of carbon et al would remain constant, but we know that is not true.
It is true that decay rates are constant (except for very small changes for a couple of specific light isotopes and specific decay processes). Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary (not merely unfounded allegations by RATE et al)?


But I think it would be more likely that all the different 'kinds' were created separately, rather than us and all the other animals sharing a common ancestor.

:teeth:
Most OEC's agree with you on this, otherwise they would call themselves TEs.

[disciple100]

It is true that decay rates are constant (except for very small changes for a couple of specific light isotopes and specific decay processes). Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary (not merely unfounded allegations by RATE et al)?

:teeth: Nope, all I got's the unfounded allegations by RATE et al. Like here :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove


Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.

Like I said, it might be more than 6000, but billions seems a bit much. I can see what you guys mean about trying to force things to fit, and as I said, Marston's book was an interesting read.


Most OEC's agree with you on this, otherwise they would call themselves TEs.

Yeah, I'm no ape! :brood: 2% is a big difference.

[KBertsche]

:teeth: Nope, all I got's the unfounded allegations by RATE et al. Like here :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove


FYI, a number of evangelical believers (including me) have analyzed the RATE claims and found that they do not hold up:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

[disciple100]

here's another excerpt from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove


We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

[disciple100]

FYI, a number of evangelical believers (including me) have analyzed the RATE claims and found that they do not hold up:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm
Thank you for the link. I found this bit interesting:


The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of year’s worth of radioactivity [12] and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock. [13] They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat. [14] Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion [15] has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe. [16] Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old.

Now, would it exactly be wrong to think that God may have divinely intervened and sped things up?

[KBertsche]

here's another excerpt from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Whoever wrote this up is either ignorant of geological dating techniques or is intentionally trying to deceive.

Standard K-Ar dating has been known for decades to have exactly this problem if the lava has cooled too rapidly. This has been well documented in the literature. Because of this, an improved technique called Ar-Ar (or 39Ar-40Ar) was developed more than 20 years ago. This technique is able to exclude the original argon, and to give accurate dates even on rapidly-cooled lava. If the lava is suspected of cooling rapidly, Ar-Ar should be used rather than K-Ar.

If the RATE team really used K-Ar for rapidly-cooled lava, they used the wrong tool and got bad data. To use this bad data to cast doubt on all of radioisotope dating is disingenuous.

[lfellows]

The Zechariah passage refers to 'one day' whose length is known only to the lord, for there is neither day nor night to define it so man can know. It is not a 'literal' day as in 24 hours. Read the entire context.

The supports the idea that

(1) there are 'days' whose length is defined by the Lord, not the markers used by men.
(2) the construct used to describe such a day is the same as that used in Genesis 1:5

Where do you get the idea that the length of the day is known only by the Lord? You state it is not a literal 24-hour day without any support other then assuming that because the night will be illuminated that 24-hours cannot still define the time period. Then you jump from your unsupported assumption about the length of the day to the conclusion that your assumption supports 'days of unknown length'.





The Hosea passage is a passage speaking of the return of Israel to their God (at least from the Christian POV) which has parallel application in the death and resurrection of Christ. However, in no way are these days simple 24 hour periods in context, they refer to a period of time which many liken to the current 2000 year 'time of the gentiles' prophetically. (Just do a web search on Hosea 6). But they are, regardless of a Judaic or Christian approach to their interpretation, NOT 24 hour days.

All through Hosea we see day being used to mean time periods greater than 24 hours, and this construct, again, is like the one in Genesis.Please show me in the Hebrew where 'day' is used to imply anything other then a traditional 24-hour day in Hosea 6:2? With the exception of Hosea 6:2, I did not even find a mention of time measurement in Hosea 6.



ETA: What both of these passages show is that the proper interpretation of 'day' is not defined by some ad hoc grammatical rule, but by the context of the text.?? When does 'day' refer to a literal 24-hour period of time we call 'day' except by the application of our agreed upon rules of grammer?

[Howze]

I had been a YEC for years, for theological reasons really. But scientifically it is bunkum. They use the bait and switch tecnique, ie they only tell you the work and interpretations that give their position support and leave out the mountain of evidence that falsifies their claims.

My favorite example is the C14 in coal and oil. Now if they were correct this would all date to roughly 6000 years. It doesn't it 'dates' according to them at 50000 years. They will tell you that AMAZINGLY there is C14 when if the rocks are 'millions of years old' there should be none. They will also tell you the coal dates at 50000 years WAAAAAY too young for the Earth to be 'millions of years old'.

What they DON'T tell you is that 50000 years is the limit of detection for the C14 method, so basically there is so little present that the technique only just detects it. They further don't tell you that the presence of C14 in coal is easily explained by natural radioactivity from the rocks that surround it. The other stuff from RATE is equally bad, embarrassingly bad.

Look I don't think these folks are actively trying to decieve, they have simply decieved themselves. I know I did. Now I have become a OEC type I feel much better about how science and my faith relate together. I have given up thinking that I fully understand Genesis 1 for the present - I'm not sure exactly how to interpret it, but I do know that whatever the the correct understanding is, it will dovetail with good science!