Questions For Progressive Creationists

[seer]

First I want to look at one day of creation:

Genesis 1:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


1. Was God able to create all these species spontaneously in one 24 hour period? Or was that beyond His ability?

2. If He was able, why create through a long period/age rather than spontaneously? What would be the logic in that?

3. If God wanted to get across the idea of a literal day here in Genesis - how do you think He would have worded it?

[reyvin]

1- Of course He was able to. He was also able to create it in an instant, given His power.

2- Why create in a week when you can do it in an instant also though? This question is just as important.

3- I think Genesis chapter one IS FRAMED in the wording of a normal week. Note I said 'framed'. It sets the pattern for the Hebrew 6+1 of work/rest as seen throughout the Bible and was based on Gen 1. As a YEC, you've got to ask yourself why God took a 24 hr week as a question if you're at all concerned as to why He would take any time at all? While Genesis is not pure poetry, it is partially so. 'And God said' (10 times) 'Let there be' (7 times) 'make' (7 times) 'firmament' (7x3) 'according to their kind' (10 times) 'and it was so' (7 times) 'and God saw it was good' (7 times) 'God blessed' (3 times) 'God "creates"' (3 times).

[A Beautiful Truth]

1. Was God able to create all these species spontaneously in one 24 hour period? Or was that beyond His ability?

Ability does not always entail what a person wills to do. Say you had the ability to run a four minute mile. Because you have the ability, does that mean will you always run a mile in four minutes? What if you were jogging with a friend? Because you can run a four minuite mile but do not always mean that you are weak? Or perhaps there are reasons you would run that fast sometimes, and not other times?

How about God had some reason for creating natural laws and choosing to create in compliment to those natural laws. (Notice I did not say "bound" but in compliment to those natural laws. I believe in special creation, I also believe God used the forces He made to create. It is not different than other miracles in the Bible. Some were totally special, ie. God mulitplying the fish to feed the multitude, others God used things He already made and the miracle was in the timing, ie. the fish with the coin in its mouth. Because God uses different methods for creating does not make Him weaker, but rather purposeful knowing such will work to His glory.

I believe that the Natural Law Theodicy is rightly extended to encompass why God chose natural laws and even works within those natural laws, though clearly not always. God created man special, for instance, and not through natural laws.

2. If He was able, why create through a long period/age rather than spontaneously? What would be the logic in that?

The "logic in that"?! Do you know the mind of God? "I will ask you, and you instruct Me!..." (Job 38:3) Take it back, Seer. Because you don't understand the logic, does not mean that God is the one unenlightened! Very poor point.

3. If God wanted to get across the idea of a literal day here in Genesis - how do you think He would have worded it?

If God was so concerned with us not misunderstanding 24 hour days, don't you think He would have also restriced His own Sabbath day of rest to 24 hours? Clearly, He has not, it still continues (Heb. 4) You simply cannot seperate Sabbath rest from the seventh day, they are the same. Since God is on His Sabbath rest from creation, He has been on His seventh day of rest since His creative work week ended. Yes, He still works in our lives, as Jesus says, but you see, Jesus' point was that He works even while on His Sabbath (from His creative work week) to do good, just as the Pharisees ought to have done good work on the Sabbath, even though they were on their seventh day of rest.

What God shows by framing the account in a week, is a pattern, and our work week is analogous to His historical work week. YEC's make it so hard...

[learning]

Beautiful Charleen, beautifully said.
reminds me for some reason of this quote from Job too.
"Job 41:11
Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me."
God owes us nothing, no explanation, but He gives us Grace.

[Sher]

1. Was God able to create all these species spontaneously in one 24 hour period? Or was that beyond His ability?

2. If He was able, why create through a long period/age rather than spontaneously? What would be the logic in that?

3. If God wanted to get across the idea of a literal day here in Genesis - how do you think He would have worded it?Of these, only your third question is really applicable. It would have been far better to ask why God, saying creation was "very good", would have based that proclamation on millions of years of death and suffering ... the conclusion drawn by what these PC usually believe ... rather than Creation was, in fact, very good as God proclaimed, and death and suffering entered the world through Adam's sin (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15: 21,22). If there was millions of years of death and suffering ... with no literal Fall of man in the Garden of Eden, then there is no need for a Savior. If there is no first Adam, as Genesis plainly reads, there is no need for the "last Adam".

If you notice, question three was not answered -- but rather dodged with erroneous claims and twisted Scripture. :wink:


3- I think Genesis chapter one IS FRAMED in the wording of a normal week. Note I said 'framed'. It sets the pattern for the Hebrew 6+1 of work/rest as seen throughout the Bible and was based on Gen 1. Of course it sets the "pattern" ... that is obvious by us being told to follow it :ahem: ... but this hardly answers seer's question. Context determines the meaning. Therefore, how would God have illustrated to us literal days in the context of how the words read? Evening and Morning -- fractions of a 24 hour period? Cardinal and ordinal numbers -- numbering it for us? Supporting scripture in other places the confirms the point -- supporting the historical validity of the passages?

Oh my ... He did all that, didn't He? :lol:

While Genesis is not pure poetry, it is partially so. 'And God said' (10 times) 'Let there be' (7 times) 'make' (7 times) 'firmament' (7x3) 'according to their kind' (10 times) 'and it was so' (7 times) 'and God saw it was good' (7 times) 'God blessed' (3 times) 'God "creates"' (3 times).You mistake poetry for what is in fact emphasis. Genesis outlines the Creation week ... so that one does not have to be a Biblical scholar to understand that the days were literal, ordinary days.

If God was so concerned with us not misunderstanding 24 hour days, don't you think He would have also restriced His own Sabbath day of rest to 24 hours? Clearly, He has not, it still continues (Heb. 4)Your mistake is well answered by AiG's article "Is the seventh day an eternal day?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4103.asp).
1. God’s present rest does not logically imply a long seventh day.
2. God’s rest on the seventh day is always spoken of in the past tense.
3. It makes no sense of Exodus 20:9–11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=EXOD%2B20:9-11)#uage=english&version=KJV&showfn=on).
4. Most importantly, it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture.
You simply cannot seperate Sabbath rest from the seventh day, they are the same. No, you cannot. Nor can you add your outside ideas to what the text plainly teaches ...

YEC's make it so hard...No ... we don't make anything ... we read Scripture as it was intended to be understood ... not hyperliterally, nor with outside ideas determining what the text means. Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture ... and millions of years are an impossiblity born in the minds of those that try to put the authority of science above the Word of our Saviour.



2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (NAS)

[learning]

Please read what I wrote about OEC in the question about Adam in that thread about the '? about Adam for OEC'. I don't know about Charleen's ideas of OEC, but perhaps you should consider how you judge OEC before you say we are twisting scripture. Exactly who and what do you consider 'twisted scripture' here? I know what I quoted goes for all christians, God owes us all nothing, but gives us grace.
Here's some ?'s for you to see how I think a little differently maybe about scripture.
'How long were Adam and Eve in the garden? How long was their eternity? When were they started to be aged, if they were eternal before that? Wouldn't their aging start with their sin? These are just my ideas, may be off :), but don't go around judging other christians as twisting scripture. We have a right to interpret another way perhaps, isn't that what freedom of religion is supposed to be about.

I have no doubt God created, just not actually sure 'HOW' and it is not kind, in my opinion, to say another is twisting scripture just cause it doesn't fit your interpretation. I know I have the Holy Spirit living in me, but I also know I don't have all the answers to the ? of creation and "HOW" God did it. I don't doubt His word, just don't want to take a spoon fed interpretation of it, in case God may have something else to say to me. If we had the answer to "HOW" God did creation, perhaps we wouldn't need science. I do think God is opening up our eyes to this, at least mine, and I know He'll lead us where He wants us to go. Please, I just don't like the 'label' stuff. I am willing to work on 'why' you think OEC or YEC or TE is wrong, but I hate the 'label' put downs. I hate the 'anti fundie' stuff as much as the 'you liberal stuff' .
I wish we could get down to the facts and quit acting like 'my ideas are better than yours' :) Well, some are better, but lets see why.

[learning]

I have one more ? How do you know that those days weren't longer? Days are longer at the artic. How do we know that the earth wasn't revolving slower in those days of creation. We only know what it is doing now. I know, this is a bit of a stretch, but it is just the idea that we often take our ideas of what we know now and put it into context of what we read. Now, I have no doubt at the time of Moses that there were 24 hour days, at least I assume so, so he may have meant that.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Of these, only your third question is really applicable. It would have been far better to ask why God, saying creation was "very good", would have based that proclamation on millions of years of death and suffering ... the conclusion drawn by what these PC usually believe ... rather than Creation was, in fact, very good as God proclaimed, and death and suffering entered the world through Adam's sin (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15: 21,22). If there was millions of years of death and suffering ... with no literal Fall of man in the Garden of Eden, then there is no need for a Savior. If there is no first Adam, as Genesis plainly reads, there is no need for the "last Adam".

Hi,

I don't think you understand progressive creation very well. What day age person does not believe in a literal Fall? I could be wrong, of course, but I don't know of any myself.

If you notice, question three was not answered -- but rather dodged with erroneous claims and twisted Scripture. :wink:

Your're not one of those "twisted Scripture" accusing YEC's are you? :wink:

I protest to having "dodged" the question, I just understood it differently than you. I did not know the answer entailed giving a response to millions of years of death and suffering. But now that you brought it up...you may want to start a thread with that in its title, we may get some more people on board for discussion.

Of course it sets the "pattern" ... that is obvious by us being told to follow it :ahem: ... but this hardly answers seer's question. Context determines the meaning. Therefore, how would God have illustrated to us literal days in the context of how the words read? Evening and Morning -- fractions of a 24 hour period? Cardinal and ordinal numbers -- numbering it for us? Supporting scripture in other places the confirms the point -- supporting the historical validity of the passages?

You bring up good points. These have been answered in various places...I'll have to dig and do some cutting and pasting. I only wish I had more time...


Your mistake is well answered by AiG's article "Is the seventh day an eternal day?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4103.asp).
1. God’s present rest does not logically imply a long seventh day.
2. God’s rest on the seventh day is always spoken of in the past tense.
3. It makes no sense of Exodus 20:9–11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=EXOD%2B20:9-11)#uage=english&version=KJV&showfn=on).
4. Most importantly, it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture.


You simply cannot seperate Sabbath rest from the seventh day, they are the same.

No, you cannot.

My point, exactly.

Sher,

Some of us had a rather good discussion here on this forum in the thread "Annalogous Day Interpretation" about God's seventh day:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20688

Will you please refresh that thread, I'd like to go into it more with you about God's seventh day. I think the argument for God still resting is a very strong one, please join me there :smile:

No ... we don't make anything ... we read Scripture as it was intended to be understood ... not hyperliterally, nor with outside ideas determining what the text means. Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture ... and millions of years are an impossiblity born in the minds of those that try to put the authority of science above the Word of our Saviour.

Gee, Sher, I think we may be off to a bad start. All else being equal, how far will you distance yourself from one who holds to a day age view? Would you worship with them, eat with them, allow them into your house, do you consider them your brothers and sisters in Christ? I ask because I do accept my YEC brethern as true believers and I want to know if, all else being equal, do you believe OEC's can indeed by true believers?

In Him,

Charleen

[reyvin]

You said:
Of these, only your third question is really applicable. It would have been far better to ask why God, saying creation was "very good", would have based that proclamation on millions of years of death and suffering ... the conclusion drawn by what these PC usually believe ... rather than Creation was, in fact, very good as God proclaimed, and death and suffering entered the world through Adam's sin (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15: 21,22). If there was millions of years of death and suffering ... with no literal Fall of man in the Garden of Eden, then there is no need for a Savior. If there is no first Adam, as Genesis plainly reads, there is no need for the "last Adam".

****You're assuming what your definition of 'very good' is, is the same for God. Read Job again where it talks of the ostrich or the lions hunger. None of this is blamed on the fall but is rather brought up to illustrate that there are things that happen that are far beyond mans understanding. Your bringing up Romans 5 is not a good argument for the YEC position and neither is 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus died for man who is created in the image of God. Not for turtles, ants and rocks.



You said:
If you notice, question three was not answered -- but rather dodged with erroneous claims and twisted Scripture. :wink:

**** I cant help but feel a little offended here. I'm not 'twisting' anything but rather realizing that its not yesterdays paper and may have a much bigger picture/literary style than what you're reading into it.


You said:
Of course it sets the "pattern" ... that is obvious by us being told to follow it :ahem: ... but this hardly answers seer's question. Context determines the meaning. Therefore, how would God have illustrated to us literal days in the context of how the words read? Evening and Morning -- fractions of a 24 hour period? Cardinal and ordinal numbers -- numbering it for us? Supporting scripture in other places the confirms the point -- supporting the historical validity of the passages?

****Yes, it also set the pattern for these following: Exd 21:2 - If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. or Exd 23:10 - And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof
So, did the Hebrews hold six 24 hour days to be the message in the text or rather the work pattern of 6+1? Author of Science and Faith and also Designer Universe (Poe) seems to make this very point. Good link found here: http://lordibelieve.org/Days.htm

You said:
You mistake poetry for what is in fact emphasis. Genesis outlines the Creation week ... so that one does not have to be a Biblical scholar to understand that the days were literal, ordinary days.

****You are using your own reading by saying 'its just emphasis'. My own pastor who is YEC once pointed out the partial poetic elements in the text (they can't be coincedence after all) and that part of my post is from Paul Copan (affiliate of Ravi Zacharias....certainly both well schooled).

You said:
Your mistake is well answered by AiG's article "Is the seventh day an eternal day?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4103.asp).
1. God’s present rest does not logically imply a long seventh day.
2. God’s rest on the seventh day is always spoken of in the past tense.
3. It makes no sense of Exodus 20:9–11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=EXOD%2B20:9-11)#uage=english&version=KJV&showfn=on).
4. Most importantly, it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture.
No, you cannot. Nor can you add your outside ideas to what the text plainly teaches ...

****I'm not 'adding' anything. If the seventh day is not ordinary, there is reason to ask if the prior six were. Perhaps a different point is being made than what a YEC would assume?

No ... we don't make anything ... we read Scripture as it was intended to be understood ... not hyperliterally, nor with outside ideas determining what the text means. Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture ... and millions of years are an impossiblity born in the minds of those that try to put the authority of science above the Word of our Saviour.

****You assume you read Scripture as it was intended to be understood. YEC's make assumptions also. I'm all for letting Scripture interpret Scripture. I agree with you in following the Word of our Savior.

You said: 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (NAS)


****Amen!

[reyvin]

Ack...my bad. I put my entire reply in Sher's quote...lol...