Young Earth Creationist Only

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

This is a question for Young Earth Creationist only please. For many years I have it has been my belief that the Young Earth interpretation of Genesis 1 was something that was forced, unnecessarily, onto the text by hyper literalist in order to refute Darwinist evolution. The word Hebrew word yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or undetermined length of time, or even a part of a day.

I believe that to the original audience, the length of the “day” would not be important. The important thing would be Who created the world, and that He created from nothing (and thereby refuting other ANE creation myths that the original audience would be familiar with).

Also, the 24-hour day is based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, and the sun was not created until day four. I took this as an indication that the day (yom) in Genesis 1 was probably not intended to mean a literal 24-hour day.

Also, additional time text in the OT and the NT indicate that time is not the same for God as it is for man (1 day = a thousand years), so I thought that placing God’s creative “days” within mans understanding of a 24-hour day was an unnecessary anthropomorphizing of God.

However, recently at least two people, neither of whom I consider to be hyper literalist, have stated and/or I inferred that they adopt the young earth view of creation.

I am referring to Dee Dee Warren here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=8616#post8616


And Gray Pilgrim here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=8650#post8650


It has been my position for many years that based on the text it can not be definitely determined how long the days (yom) of Genesis were, and in fact this was a non issue to the original intended audience. However, I do lean very strongly toward an old earth interpretation of that scripture.

I would like some input from young earth creationist (not just Dee Dee or GP) as to why they believe that the text of Genesis 1 demands (or at least strongly suggest) a young earth interpretation. I do not necessarily want to limit anyone to Genesis 1, feel free to use scripture to interpret scripture. But I do want the focus to be on Genesis 1.

I do not want any scientific arguments for a young earth at this point please.

I have no problem with God creating the earth in 6 24-hour periods; I just don’t think that the text says that. (but then I could be wrong, it has happened before ;)).

[GrayPilgrim]

Gen 1:5 RSV
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


Okay we need to see that this is a shaped retelling of the event, although that does not imply un-historical. But lets look at the language of verse 5. I picked the RSV because it along withthe NAS have the closest rendering of the Hebrew.

The other day (2-7) use ordinal numbers, i.e. second, third..., but here we have a cardinal number. Now as my Hebrew prof. used to say when you see discontinuity focus on it, it wasn't put there as an accident, think of it as a speed bump. Slow down and work it out.

So instead of there was evening and there was morning, the first day. I see this verse as an etieological statement. That is it says "one day equals an evening and a morning". Thus while in some places yom (specifically delimiteated, e.g. the Day of The Lord) can have a longer than 24 hour duration, as I see it Gen 1:5 defines the usage of yom for Gen 1:1-2:4 and thus shapes its understanding throughout the canon.

[dizzle]

Dear Faramir:

As a fellow preterist, I can validly use this appeal to you. If God HAD wanted to say 6 24 hours days how could He have worded it any clearer? It was first my YEC belief that led me naturally to preterism. The timing texts in Genesis are as plain as the NT timing texts as GP exegetically has pointed out. Ask yourself honestly, if it were not for the prevailing scientific view that the earth is older, would you have even questioned the text? I have more to add if you like....

[dizzle]

But again.. I will honestly say that this is not a hill I would die on though I do feel pretty strongly for it...

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Faramir:

As a fellow preterist, I can validly use this appeal to you. If God HAD wanted to say 6 24 hours days how could He have worded it any clearer?


Yes IF that is what God intended. But that seems to me to be begging the question. However, I have no doubt that you will set me strait. ;)

I am really not trying to defend the Old earth position here, just looking for some clarification. I really do not consider my self an Old Earth advocate (although I did at one time). I am more of an age of the earth agnostic looking for opinions from the young earth side (since I consider myself well versed in the old earth view).

Dee Dee Warren:
Ask yourself honestly, if it were not for the prevailing scientific view that the earth is older, would you have even questioned the text? I have more to add if you like....

Very good point Dee Dee. And yes, it was the prevailing scientific view that made me originally question the text. However, I have since come to have a much lower esteem of "origin" science (both OE and YE) as both camps seem too biased to me. Hence the request for no scientific evidence.

However, I still believe that the text does not necessitate a young earth. I am familiar with GP's argument about the use of ordinals in relation to the days. And to me it is the most convincing argument for a young earth creation. But I am still not convinced that Moses really intended for the length of the day to be an issue.

So to sum it all up, this is my position:

I believe that the length of days in Gen. 1 was not an issue for the original audience (the children of Israel during the Exodus).

I believe that even today it is a secondary issue due to recent scientific theories, and the most important facet of Gen. 1 is that God created the universe from nothing.

These are the reasons that I lean toward a young earth:

1. The use of ordinals in association with the word day (yom)
2. It is the clearest interpretation of the scripture.


This is the reasons that I lean toward an old earth:

1. The word translated day can mean an indefinite period of time (this by itself is non persuasive, but without this the other arguments are null and void)

2. A 24-hour day is based on the earths rotation in relation to the sun, yet the sun was created on the fourth day. It seems to me that forcing a 24-hour day in a situation where that definition is meaningless is a bit of a stretch.

3. The fact that elsewhere in scripture it indicates that God is not bound to time in the way that humans are, suggest to me that the creation days are not necessarily 24 hours. (an example from preterism the "day" of the Lord is not necessarily exactly 24 hours long.)

I am not trying to defend old earth creationism here. I really believe that the important aspect of the creation story is Who, not how long.

However, I do believe that God's word is true (in the original autograph), and if the Word really does say that the earth is young, I will have no trouble accepting that. In fact I will have no other choice but to accept that.

I really just hate being agnostic about anything.

And yes, I would like to hear more from you Dee Dee.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
But again.. I will honestly say that this is not a hill I would die on though I do feel pretty strongly for it...

I used to feel the same way about Old Earth Creationism.

Now I care even less.

I still believe in dual revelation. That is God reveals His Truth through His Specific Revelation (the Bible) and through His General Revelation (His Creation).

Theology is the study of God's Special Revelation, and Science is the study of God's General Revelation. Rarely do the two intersect, but when they do they will reveal the same truth. If there is a conflict, there is either something wrong with the Science or something wrong with the theology. (or both ;))

However, I have recently come to the conclusion that "origin" science is much more theory than fact and that "origin" scientist on both sides are way to biased to be credible.

That leaves me with determining the age of the earth from theology.

If tomorrow I was given incontrovertible evidence that the earth was old. :yipee: One banana Now I know.

If tomorrow I was given incontrovertible evidence that the earth was young. :yipee: :yipee: Two bananas. Now I know. And now the skeptics have one of their favorite arguments taken away.

So you see I want to believe in a young earth. I just learned a long time ago that, when it comes to God's word :read:, it is more important to believe what it says, than to believe what you want to believe.

So here is your chance to convince me.

[GrayPilgrim]

I want to treat the issue of the meaning of ywm and the spurious idea that it can have an indeterminate length of time. Okay, let’s look at yom in the OT. The morpheme ywm occurs 2301 times—76 of which can be excluded as homophones from a separate Semitic root meaning storm. Now lets look at the definition given by HALOT (is their a better way to site Bible software).



Hal3649 YWM

I YWM (2225 times), MHeb. SamP.M113 yom/yuÒm Jerome hayum;

—1. day, daylight; by day, midday; fourth part of the day; until the heat of the day;

—2. day of twenty-four hours: Gn 1:5, a full day; for three days,

—3. special days:

—4. day of Yahweh: eschatological, his days (of punishment); the prophetic introductory formula:

—7. period of time: year; year by year, annually



I trimmed this down it was a few pages long, but two things stick out to me.


HALOT indicates Gen 1:5 as a 24 hour period
Whenever the word is used to refer to something longer than or other than a 24 hour period there is a modifier that tips of the reader. And since such a modifier is missing in Gen 1, it does seem to be question begging.


I can give you examples to show, why I do not think that lexical possibility allows for the lexical probability that the semantic intent of ywm in Genesis 1 is anything other than ywm (and If you can decipher that sentence you deserve an all expenses paid vacation for 70 to the Bahamas for the rest of your life! [this offer not valid in the United States or any other spatial dimension]).

[GrayPilgrim]

Faramir:

So you see I want to believe in a young earth. I just learned a long time ago that, when it comes to God's word :read:, it is more important to believe what it says, than to believe what you want to believe.


Amen! That is so true. ow many of our doctrinal peculiarities are based on traditions about the text instead of the text!

[TheFiveSolas]

Faramir wrote:
This is the reasons that I lean toward an old earth:

1. The word translated day can mean an indefinite period of time (this by itself is non persuasive, but without this the other arguments are null and void)

2. A 24-hour day is based on the earths rotation in relation to the sun, yet the sun was created on the fourth day. It seems to me that forcing a 24-hour day in a situation where that definition is meaningless is a bit of a stretch.

3. The fact that elsewhere in scripture it indicates that God is not bound to time in the way that humans are, suggest to me that the creation days are not necessarily 24 hours. (an example from preterism the "day" of the Lord is not necessarily exactly 24 hours long.)


Let me try to address these three points.

1) The word yom can in fact refer to an indefinite period of time, however, from what I've been told in each and every instance where the term yom is coupled with a number (I think you people referred to it as an ordinal) it always refers to a normal day of about 24 hours. In other words, from what I've been told, nowhere in Scripture does the word yom coupled with an ordinal mean anything other than a normal 24 hour day. On a side note, one of my professors mentioned that a graduate student sent out a survey to a dozen top universities asking their Hebrew Professors to answer a question on Genesis 1. The question was, just from the TEXT itself, did the wording chosen by the author intend to convey the idea that the days spoken of were regular 24hr type days. Of the nine universities that responded ALL said that just looking at the text alone, yes, the author chose wording that indicates normal days.

2) The time measurement for a day relies on the Earth's rotation about its own axis. In other words, the time it takes to make one complete rotation. Therefore, the time it takes for the Earth to rotate does not depend upon the Sun at all. In addition, the text seems to indicate that God provided a source of light prior to the creation of the Sun AND that this source of light was divided between day and night (I believe there are theological reasons why God did this, i.e., one reason is that this text teaches that God is, in the ultimate sense, our light and source of life rather than something in creation). Taking the fact that the text divides night and day (darkness and light) and the fact that the Earth's rotation around its axis is what constitutes a 24hr day I conclude that there was a supernatural light provided by God prior to the creation of the Sun AND the rotation of the Earth in relation to this light source is what separated night from day.

3) Scripture does say that God's relationship to time is not the same as ours, however Genesis 1 is speaking to us humans in language that we can relate to. Therefore, I conclude that since God often condescends to speak to us on our level (note: Scripture often asserts that if God spoke to us on His level we wouldn't be able to comprehend it), when He inspired Moses to record Genesis 1 He did so with the intention that the language He used would be understood from the human vantage point rather than the divine.

Hope that helps!

[Renegade Drow]

I, like Faramir, am ‘Creationist Agnostic’. I am completely science ignorant, but I heard (maybe from John Haggee sp?) a version that made sense to my little mind. Here is a time break between v2 and v3. The earth is actually old (geologically), with young life. I really don’t know if there is any merit to it, as it has been a topic that doesn’t really interest me much. Old, new, somewhere in between, don’t care (outside the scope of a good discussion), I just don’t find that it matters much; read – it won’t change my faith in Christ.



RD

[dizzle]

Gaps make preterists turn into pillars of salt. Eeek!!! I soundly reject the "gap theory" in both Genesis and in Daniel.

[Yog^sothoth]

Actually it wasn't forced. It actually came before Darwin. In fact, Darwin was actually almost forced to publish his book. The events leading up to his publication are kinda of legend I guess.

You have the reconquista in spain which eventually leads to the discovery that the Moors had retained most of the old roman knowledge.

This age of discovery leads to the enlightenment.

I won't use names here.

A guy coins the terms genus and species but the scientists of this time are attempting to explain why the archbishop who created the young earth theory was correct.

Another guy completely develops the system we use for taxonomy and places Humans in the same genus with apes, but maintains he is a devout believer in the creation theory

Charles Lyell (I know, I said I wouldn't use names) comes up with the theory that the Earth is FAR older than anyone would suspect because if things like erosion happened (and it was proven that they did) then for there to be any sort of lasting change the Earth had to be far older than anyone had initially thought. (this man is also known as the Father of modern Geology)

We also see a theory named Catastophism which says that new species are created because of catastophies which happen on earth, cause species from other areas to migrate to the destroyed area.

Darwin's theory, when published, was constantly thrust in the face of the church. If it hadn't been for these initial Angry outbursts, Darwins theory might have a more church oriented acceptance.

I skipped some things there but that is the Gist. The theory wasn't forced, it was just a step in the age of enlightenment.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Gaps make preterists turn into pillars of salt. Eeek!!! I soundly reject the "gap theory" in both Genesis and in Daniel.

At least here we are in agreement. Eeeek!!!!! to gap theories.


I may be a "creationist agnostic", but soundly reject the gap theory. Even when I was a dispy., I didn't but it. ;)


Thanks for the info Dee Dee. I am still agnostic, but I will consider what you said. It takes me quite some time for me to change my mind on issues of theology.

[Blake Reas]

I hold to a view similar to John S. Feinbergs. I will call it the Modified young earth view. Do to the attractiveness of the literary framework interpretation of Genesis, I use it and a young earth. If there are any questions I will go back and freshen up on my reading in this area since it is not of a whole lot of interest to me.:read:

In Christ,
Blake

[Renegade Drow]

Eeeek!!!!! to gap theories.

Really??? That bad? What is the big thing with a 'gap theory'??



RD

[dizzle]

Dear RD:

Which one? The Genesis one or the Daniel one?

[smilax]

Why have a figurative first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day but a literal seventh?

[dizzle]

Dear Faramir:

I had asked, “If God HAD wanted to say 6 24 hours days how could He have worded it any clearer?” to which you replied,

Yes IF that is what God intended. But that seems to me to be begging the question. However, I have no doubt that you will set me strait.

LOL!! I think you may have missed my point…. I am actually trying to unbeg it somewhat rhetorically. IF the text of Genesis 1 is not clear that God meant 6 24 hours days, how COULD he have worded it that would have been any clearer? I am not begging my question, I am taking the contrary position as true for the sake of argument, and seeing how God could have communicated this to us if He wanted to. The same thing holds for the NT “coming” passages… if near doesn’t mean near, and soon doesn’t mean soon, what words could God have used to say soon and near if He really meant it? I know this point will not mean much to our futurist brethren, except to the extent to possibly show that they are being inconsistent if they are YCE and not preterist, but to you the point should hit home where it hurts.

I am sorry now if I am cherry-picking around some of your questions, please let me know if you want me to hit some of the others….

You said,

1. The word translated day can mean an indefinite period of time (this by itself is non persuasive, but without this the other arguments are null and void)

Again, I appeal to your preteristic common sense. This is a case of illegitimate transfer of a semantic domain. Don’t you get tired of futurists saying that ‘generation’ can mean ‘race’? That is exactly what is done here. There is nothing in the context for it to appear to be anything other than a normal day. The text says, “it was evening” “it was morning” over and over again. It as if God went out His way to make sure we understood. And as another person has pointed out, all this would take is a light source, it would not necessarily have to be the sun. And God said, ‘let there be light.’ That happens in verse 3 as well as the division of “night” and “day” which I think you would take literally. Well if those references to “night” and “day” are literal, then why isn’t the subsequent uses of “morning” and “evening” literal as well?

Also, I would bring in several other interesting factors here. The Jewish work week is patterned directly upon God’s creation week (Exodus 20:8). This pattern is highly suggestive of a literal correspondence. But I have another interesting nugget to bring to your attention, that I rarely see brought up….

Even if we are going to allow some of these days to mean long periods of time, this does not solve the problem of the modern concepts of the antiquity of man. Why? Well because Adam (the FIRST man) was created on day six. But we know how long Adam lived, 930 years (Genesis 9:5). That places the maximum limit on how long day six could have been, and it was much shorter than that since he had a long life and children after the fall. Now… so we know that day six was not some multi-millennial period, why would we think the others were? We cannot use the fossil record as evidence of some great ages before the fall, for then you have death of “nephesh” creatures before Adam and carnivory, which Genesis 1:30 ( and Biblical consistency) seems to rule out.

The fact that elsewhere in scripture it indicates that God is not bound to time in the way that humans are, suggest to me that the creation days are not necessarily 24 hours. (an example from preterism the "day" of the Lord is not necessarily exactly 24 hours long.)

EEEEKKK!!!! Tell me it ain’t true (you know I am yanking your chain right?), a preterist is using the “God’s perspective of time” argument? Gah! Okay, but really Faramir, the passage is talking to us about what God did, it is not talking to God. God has no time at all, so such an exercise is futile.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Faramir:

I had asked, “If God HAD wanted to say 6 24 hours days how could He have worded it any clearer?” to which you replied,



LOL!! I think you may have missed my point…. I am actually trying to unbeg it somewhat rhetorically. IF the text of Genesis 1 is not clear that God meant 6 24 hours days, how COULD he have worded it that would have been any clearer? I am not begging my question, I am taking the contrary position as true for the sake of argument, and seeing how God could have communicated this to us if He wanted to. The same thing holds for the NT “coming” passages… if near doesn’t mean near, and soon doesn’t mean soon, what words could God have used to say soon and near if He really meant it? I know this point will not mean much to our futurist brethren, except to the extent to possibly show that they are being inconsistent if they are YCE and not preterist, but to you the point should hit home where it hurts.

I am sorry now if I am cherry-picking around some of your questions, please let me know if you want me to hit some of the others….

You said,



Again, I appeal to your preteristic common sense. This is a case of illegitimate transfer of a semantic domain. Don’t you get tired of futurists saying that ‘generation’ can mean ‘race’? That is exactly what is done here. There is nothing in the context for it to appear to be anything other than a normal day. The text says, “it was evening” “it was morning” over and over again. It as if God went out His way to make sure we understood. And as another person has pointed out, all this would take is a light source, it would not necessarily have to be the sun. And God said, ‘let there be light.’ That happens in verse 3 as well as the division of “night” and “day” which I think you would take literally. Well if those references to “night” and “day” are literal, then why isn’t the subsequent uses of “morning” and “evening” literal as well?

Also, I would bring in several other interesting factors here. The Jewish work week is patterned directly upon God’s creation week (Exodus 20:8). This pattern is highly suggestive of a literal correspondence. But I have another interesting nugget to bring to your attention, that I rarely see brought up….

Even if we are going to allow some of these days to mean long periods of time, this does not solve the problem of the modern concepts of the antiquity of man. Why? Well because Adam (the FIRST man) was created on day six. But we know how long Adam lived, 930 years (Genesis 9:5). That places the maximum limit on how long day six could have been, and it was much shorter than that since he had a long life and children after the fall. Now… so we know that day six was not some multi-millennial period, why would we think the others were? We cannot use the fossil record as evidence of some great ages before the fall, for then you have death of “nephesh” creatures before Adam and carnivory, which Genesis 1:30 ( and Biblical consistency) seems to rule out.



EEEEKKK!!!! Tell me it ain’t true (you know I am yanking your chain right?), a preterist is using the “God’s perspective of time” argument? Gah! Okay, but really Faramir, the passage is talking to us about what God did, it is not talking to God. God has no time at all, so such an exercise is futile.

Good points Dee Dee. I will get back to you on this later. I am a little bussy at the moment though.

[geebob]

It matters not to me whether the author intended a literal day or indefinite amounts of time. Well it matters to me a little, I think he meant literal days, but that doesn't mean the account as a whole is meant to tell us how God literally did it. In college, I was presented a fairly sophistocated view to that effect siting for instance the polemic elements in Genesis against pagan creation accounts which emphasized the contrast between Yaweh and his power and the petty insignificant gods of the pagans who created the world by gutting each other, creating humanity as an accident (as opposed to the pinnicle) and so on.

But for me the issue of a young earth is decided mostly outside of Genesis. God is the God of the living, and if Jesus can use this and the present tense description Of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and so on, to prove that there is life after death, surely it is more direct to point out that Because he is a God of the living, his methods of creation would not likely involve the methods of death and suffering both of which are intrinsic to evolution. The part of Genesis I find most relevent is that God pronounced the creation very good and death and suffering do not fall into the category of very good. Certainly they are useful in a world of sin, because they are part of the curse of sin. Heaven forbid should permit rebelious men to live on in paradise oblivious to the pain that we cause him, obliviousness that contributes to our calousness. So the whole of nature was subjected to strife.

Notice that this is still a problem for old earth creationists who don't believe in evolution. We still have death and suffering reigning on earth before the fall of man.

Now alot of people question whether the death and suffering of animals is all that significant. maybe the fall only introduced death and suffering to humans.

I have a couple of reasons for rejecting this. One is that although the Bible has very little to say about it, it does recognize that it is unfortunate when animals suffer (Balaam's Ass, and there is concern for feeding of animals in proverbs).

Also, the suffering of animals matters to us. People feel sorrow and regret over the death and suffering of their pets.

But one reason that I suspect to be relevent, and if it is, it is the most important reason of all, is this question. If the death of animals is not in some way a part of the curse of creation, was the sacrificial system really sufficient for even a temporary replacement for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God? This is something that I do not believe has been given much attention but should be explored. In the slaughtering of the lamb, there is a sense that because of sin, something pure and innocent is marred. But if among God's intentions for baby lambs is to be ripped and shredded in the jaws of predators, I don't see that slicing the throughts of sheep is any more significant than the acts of slicing the throats of cucumbers or celery, and as we can see from Cain's example, that did not satisfy God for the purposes of the sacrificial system.

[TheFiveSolas]

GeeBob (oops, geebob),
That was a very interesting point. One that I had never heard before, thanks.

[dizzle]

Geebob, that is exactly the sort of things I was alluding to in my answer as well.

But here is another though as well.... Jesus in referring to Adam and Eve in his teaching on marriage said that they were created at the BEGINNING of creation. Now if the creation week was a long period of time... eons in fact, day six was hardly at the beginning.

[geebob]

But here is another though as well.... Jesus in referring to Adam and Eve in his teaching on marriage said that they were created at the BEGINNING of creation. Now if the creation week was a long period of time... eons in fact, day six was hardly at the beginning.

I agree that that's awkward.

If I was an old earth creationist, I just simply wouldn't even bother trying to line all of the days up with reality with day/age or gap theory. I would say something like, look, the wizard of Oz was a political commentary where the author wanted our currency to be based upon silver (I believe the slippers were silver in the book) instead of gold. It doesn't matter whether the days in the wizard represent literal 24 hour periods or not and that they line up with actual detail in the real world, and in fact they are literal days but it isn't crucial to the analogy. There's a lot of other things going on in the text that are more important to what's being said. (and of course that's weak since wizard of Oz is more fairy tail than political metaphore but I think it's relevent).

The old earth creationist would be much better off persuing a strategy along those lines.

[dizzle]

But that still wouldn't explain Christ's words, or the parallel to the sabbatical work week, or Adam's age, or a host of other things, though I agree that is what an old-earther MUST do.

[Sher]

Hello, I am new but if I may add something here. I have always considered that the gap theory of time between Gen 1: v.1 and v.2 is blown apart by:

Exod 20:11 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.

Also, does anyone who believes that creation wasn't completed in literal 24-hour periods, also believe that Christ rose after 300 years, 3000 years, or "millions of years"? If not, why not?

Gen 1:12-13 "And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Luke 24:7 "saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'"

[Hitch]

What a 'day'....

I check the new posts and Joel and SherBear are in the first two....

Remember that old Simon&Garfunkel record?

:yipee:#*%@! :yipee:


Bookends?


H

[dizzle]

What does that mean?:huh:

[Sher]

LOL! Hi Hitch, ole buddy :thumb:

[dizzle]

Oh okay!! I didn't know there was a prior relationship here... I was going ....huh???

[Socrates]

Faramir wrote a few things, and I congratulate the YECs for handling them so well :)

I should also point out that Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) long ago dealt with many of these canards. Therefore my answers can be brief, but it would behoove critics of YEC to find out what they actually say ;)

F:
"I believe that to the original audience, the length of the “day” would not be important. The important thing would be Who created the world, and that He created from nothing (and thereby refuting other ANE creation myths that the original audience would be familiar with)."

But it WAS important. It was the whole basis for the 4th Commandment in Exodus 20:8-11! It loses all force unless the days of Creation are the same type of days as those of the working week. What would you propose -- we work for 6 million years and rest for 1 million years?

F:
"Also, the 24-hour day is based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, and the sun was not created until day four. I took this as an indication that the day (yom) in Genesis 1 was probably not intended to mean a literal 24-hour day."

(Yawn, stretch) all you need is a light source, created on day one, and the Earth rotating with respect to it--see How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created? (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp)

F:
"Also, additional time text in the OT and the NT indicate that time is not the same for God as it is for man (1 day = a thousand years), so I thought that placing God’s creative “days” within mans understanding of a 24-hour day was an unnecessary anthropomorphizing of God. "

Answered at Q&A: 2 Peter 3:8 ¯ ‘one day is like a thousand years’ (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp)

F:
"However, recently at least two people, neither of whom I consider to be hyper literalist, have stated and/or I inferred that they adopt the young earth view of creation."

Exactly. It comes from the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I am another YEC who has no problem with say, J.P. Holding's analysis of alleged Biblical contradictions, which show that crass hyperliteralism is fallacious.

The only reason that YEC was ever denied was the rise of so-called scientific proof of greater age of the Earth, NOT from the Hebrew text.

Furthermore, GP has pointed out something about the sequence of ordinals and cardinals in Genesis 1, and Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of theology and Hebrew and Concordia University, Illinois, has analyzed this pattern in Genesis )Steinmann, A., [Echad] as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002).

He concluded:

[Yôm], like the English word “day”, can take on a variety of meanings. It does not in and of itself mean a twenty-four hour day [ref]. This alone has made the length of days in Genesis 1 a controversial subject [ref]. However, the use of dja in Gen 1:5 and the following unique uses of the ordinal numbers on the other days demonstrates that the text itself indicates these as regular solar days.’


The YEC position is also essential because of the tight chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11, giving the age of the father at the birth of the next in line, and Jesus and the age of the world (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp#jesus_age), as well as the teaching that the physical death of humans and animals called nephesh chayyah is the result of sin.

[Socrates]

Faramir wrote:

"I do not want any scientific arguments for a young earth at this point please. "

This is ironic, because just about all conservative opponents of YEC admit that the Hebrew of Genesis teaches 6-day creation about 6000 years ago and a globe-covering flood, but they don't believe this because they are intimidated by "science". Answers in Genesis has a number of examples, e.g. Charles Hodge (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/c_hodge.asp), Gleason Archer (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/gleason_archer.asp) and Pattle Pun (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/pattle_pun.asp) .

I urge you to realise that all "dating" methods rely on assumptions about the past. So please don't follow the above people, but instead question man's fallible opinions about "science" rather than God's infallible Word!

[Socrates]

Dee Dee Warren:
It was first my YEC belief that led me naturally to preterism.


Interesting :thinking:. It seems that Answers in Genesis's Statement of Faith (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp) doesn't take any stand on eschatology (section III (I)). That is, except that it totally rules out the neo-Hymenaean (pantelist) heresy! :yipee:

[dizzle]

Socrates:


Interesting :thinking:. It seems that Answers in Genesis's Statement of Faith (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp) doesn't take any stand on eschatology (section III (I)). That is, except that it totally rules out the neo-Hymenaean (pantelist) heresy! :yipee:

Hey Socrates!! As do I.. if you have not had a chance to yet, check out the Tektonics article linked in my signature line to see how I really feel about neo-hymeaenism. LOL.

But seriously, I have always been YEC and have had my moments in the sun of being in heated and intense debates zealously defending this stand which did cause me to look at time text texts very closely.

But I appreciate that AiG does not take an eschatological stand.... this is an issue that sincere Christians have and probably will, disagree with until Christ returns. I only brought it up here since Faramir is also a preterist so I could use those points successfully with him since we have that in common.

[dizzle]

I just noticed your moniker!! Cool.

[geebob]

But that still wouldn't explain Christ's words, or the parallel to the sabbatical work week, or Adam's age, or a host of other things, though I agree that is what an old-earther MUST do.

I don't consider Christ's words on marriage to be vary strong evidence for a strictly literal view. Whether there was a first couple or a first community (as CS Lewis suggests), the creation myth (I'm using this in a totally neutral way in terms of taking it historically literal or not) tells us essential truth about man and woman and their relation to God. Since What Jesus says is in line with the essence of this story, it has authority from the myth and demonstrates the consistency of what Jesus is saying with the myth.

However, I do agree that the explanation of the week in the law is problematic. It suggests that the six days really does represent a detail that matches up with how God created the world. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily problematic for the day age theory, (and maybe not the gap) but I've already mentioned that I don't like those views. :p

As for the age of Adam, all I can say is that that one just doesn't seem compelling to me. as to why, it's just an intuition and one which I don't know if bring to light.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Wow. Everyone thanks for all of the great answers. I will be responding to most of them as I get a chance.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Faramir:

I had asked, “If God HAD wanted to say 6 24 hours days how could He have worded it any clearer?” to which you replied,



LOL!! I think you may have missed my point…. I am actually trying to unbeg it somewhat rhetorically. IF the text of Genesis 1 is not clear that God meant 6 24 hours days, how COULD he have worded it that would have been any clearer? I am not begging my question, I am taking the contrary position as true for the sake of argument, and seeing how God could have communicated this to us if He wanted to. The same thing holds for the NT “coming” passages… if near doesn’t mean near, and soon doesn’t mean soon, what words could God have used to say soon and near if He really meant it? I know this point will not mean much to our futurist brethren, except to the extent to possibly show that they are being inconsistent if they are YCE and not preterist, but to you the point should hit home where it hurts.

I am sorry now if I am cherry-picking around some of your questions, please let me know if you want me to hit some of the others….

You said,



Again, I appeal to your preteristic common sense. This is a case of illegitimate transfer of a semantic domain. Don’t you get tired of futurists saying that ‘generation’ can mean ‘race’? That is exactly what is done here. There is nothing in the context for it to appear to be anything other than a normal day. The text says, “it was evening” “it was morning” over and over again. It as if God went out His way to make sure we understood. And as another person has pointed out, all this would take is a light source, it would not necessarily have to be the sun. And God said, ‘let there be light.’ That happens in verse 3 as well as the division of “night” and “day” which I think you would take literally. Well if those references to “night” and “day” are literal, then why isn’t the subsequent uses of “morning” and “evening” literal as well?

Well I think at least at this point I am now in "near" agreement with you. I do believe that the "best" interpretation for YOM would be a 24 hour period. However, I am still not convinced that the length of the day was that crucial to the intended audience.

Dee Dee Warren:
Also, I would bring in several other interesting factors here. The Jewish work week is patterned directly upon God’s creation week (Exodus 20:8). This pattern is highly suggestive of a literal correspondence. [QUOTE]

I have heard that argument. The correspondence is obvious. But, I I do not see the the necessity that the correspondence is literal.

[QUOTE]Dee Dee Warren:
But I have another interesting nugget to bring to your attention, that I rarely see brought up….

Even if we are going to allow some of these days to mean long periods of time, this does not solve the problem of the modern concepts of the antiquity of man. Why? Well because Adam (the FIRST man) was created on day six. But we know how long Adam lived, 930 years (Genesis 9:5). That places the maximum limit on how long day six could have been, and it was much shorter than that since he had a long life and children after the fall. Now… so we know that day six was not some multi-millennial period, why would we think the others were? We cannot use the fossil record as evidence of some great ages before the fall, for then you have death of “nephesh” creatures before Adam and carnivory, which Genesis 1:30 ( and Biblical consistency) seems to rule out.


I've actually seen this before. It seems to me that the sixth, could have begun, eons prior to Adam, and ended with the creation of Adam.

To me the death of "nephesh" is problematic to both an old earth creation (OEC) and a young earth creation (YEC). If like you say, The argument that scripture indicates that carnivory did not take place until after the fall IMHO is an argument from silence, because the passage does not say that God did not also give some animals to other animals as food. I think that it is a fairly good argument from silence nonetheless (hence the problem for the OEC). It is persuasive, but not convincing to me.

If it is true however, then you have God creating a world where there is no carnivory, then resting from creation, then re-creating animals that must eat meat to survive, thus either adding another creation day that is not in scripture.

To me it is one of the "apparent" contradiction (I think we both will agree that scripture is free from error. :D)


Dee Dee Warren:
EEEEKKK!!!! Tell me it ain’t true (you know I am yanking your chain right?), a preterist is using the “God’s perspective of time” argument? Gah! Okay, but really Faramir, the passage is talking to us about what God did, it is not talking to God. God has no time at all, so such an exercise is futile.

I agree that God has no time , although I did not come out and say that because I did not want this to turn into a discussion about OV v. not OV. This deals with events outside of human perception (with the exception of the close of day six), so I see no reason to "insist" that the "days" that God experienced were the same as humans experience.

However, I will concede that if a time frame "must" be placed on the days of creation then the "best" reading of the text would indicate that these days were in fact 24 hours.

Right now, I am still agnostic. :(

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

geebob:
It matters not to me whether the author intended a literal day or indefinite amounts of time. Well it matters to me a little, I think he meant literal days, but that doesn't mean the account as a whole is meant to tell us how God literally did it. In college, I was presented a fairly sophistocated view to that effect siting for instance the polemic elements in Genesis against pagan creation accounts which emphasized the contrast between Yaweh and his power and the petty insignificant gods of the pagans who created the world by gutting each other, creating humanity as an accident (as opposed to the pinnicle) and so on.



This is more or less my current position as well. Except, that I do not believe that the author (whom I believe to be Moses inspired by God, just in case anyone wanted to know) did not intend for the length of the days to be an issue at all.

geebob:
But for me the issue of a young earth is decided mostly outside of Genesis. God is the God of the living, and if Jesus can use this and the present tense description Of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and so on, to prove that there is life after death, surely it is more direct to point out that Because he is a God of the living, his methods of creation would not likely involve the methods of death and suffering both of which are intrinsic to evolution. The part of Genesis I find most relevent is that God pronounced the creation very good and death and suffering do not fall into the category of very good. Certainly they are useful in a world of sin, because they are part of the curse of sin. Heaven forbid should permit rebelious men to live on in paradise oblivious to the pain that we cause him, obliviousness that contributes to our calousness. So the whole of nature was subjected to strife.

Notice that this is still a problem for old earth creationists who don't believe in evolution. We still have death and suffering reigning on earth before the fall of man.

Now alot of people question whether the death and suffering of animals is all that significant. maybe the fall only introduced death and suffering to humans.

I have a couple of reasons for rejecting this. One is that although the Bible has very little to say about it, it does recognize that it is unfortunate when animals suffer (Balaam's Ass, and there is concern for feeding of animals in proverbs).

Also, the suffering of animals matters to us. People feel sorrow and regret over the death and suffering of their pets.

emphasis added


The part of your quote that I put it bold was basically my position when I was an OEC, and I think that it is still a possible interpretation (again I am somewhat agnostic about this).

geebob:
But one reason that I suspect to be relevent, and if it is, it is the most important reason of all, is this question. If the death of animals is not in some way a part of the curse of creation, was the sacrificial system really sufficient for even a temporary replacement for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God? This is something that I do not believe has been given much attention but should be explored. In the slaughtering of the lamb, there is a sense that because of sin, something pure and innocent is marred. But if among God's intentions for baby lambs is to be ripped and shredded in the jaws of predators, I don't see that slicing the throughts of sheep is any more significant than the acts of slicing the throats of cucumbers or celery, and as we can see from Cain's example, that did not satisfy God for the purposes of the sacrificial system.

This is one argument I have not heard. I will have to digest this when I have a little more time and get back to you with that.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Geebob, that is exactly the sort of things I was alluding to in my answer as well.

But here is another though as well.... Jesus in referring to Adam and Eve in his teaching on marriage said that they were created at the BEGINNING of creation. Now if the creation week was a long period of time... eons in fact, day six was hardly at the beginning.

Also a good point I had not heard before. I will have to digest that as well and get back to you.

[Captain Ochre]

Dee Dee Warren:
Geebob, that is exactly the sort of things I was alluding to in my answer as well.

But here is another though as well.... Jesus in referring to Adam and Eve in his teaching on marriage said that they were created at the BEGINNING of creation. Now if the creation week was a long period of time... eons in fact, day six was hardly at the beginning.

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created {them} from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Is that the one? Is that the beginning of creation, or the beginning of people? Arguably, the context points to the latter.

Maybe you have different verses in mind, or maybe there are subtleties to the Greek of which I am unaware.

I subscribe to Dr. John Sailhamer's view, btw (_Genesis Unbound_).

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

SherBear:
Hello, I am new but if I may add something here. I have always considered that the gap theory of time between Gen 1: v.1 and v.2 is blown apart by:

Exod 20:11 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.

Also, does anyone who believes that creation wasn't completed in literal 24-hour periods, also believe that Christ rose after 300 years, 3000 years, or "millions of years"? If not, why not?

Gen 1:12-13 "And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Luke 24:7 "saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'"

Thanks for your input SherBear, however, I think that you are creating a false dilema here. These two verses are in very different context, and even in different original languages.

No one would argue that the days refered to in Luke are from a human perspective and therefore should be taken somewhat literally.

In addition if you insist that the Genesis days and the days in Luke are exactly the same then you must beleive that Jesus was in the grave a full 72 hours, where most shcolars (conservative and liberal) agree that Jesus was only in the grave for part of three different days (Friday night, all day Saturday, and Sunday morning).

I thank you for your input.

I am really not trying to prove OEC or disprove YEC. I am trying to address some questions that I have.

[Berean]

Faramir:

If it is true however, then you have God creating a world where there is no carnivory, then resting from creation, then re-creating animals that must eat meat to survive, thus either adding another creation day that is not in scripture.To me it is one of the "apparent" contradiction (I think we both will agree that scripture is free from error.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction there,Faramir.The idea that carnivours must eat meat to survive seems to be incorrect. Answers in Genises published an article a while back about a lion,I think it was,whose preferred diet was plants.I looked for the article,but couldn't find it.Let me know If you want it and I'll keep looking. Anyway,I don't see that God would have to do any recreating.

[TheFiveSolas]

Berean,
That interesting article can be found at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Socrates:
Faramir wrote a few things, and I congratulate the YECs for handling them so well :)

I should also point out that Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) long ago dealt with many of these canards. Therefore my answers can be brief, but it would behoove critics of YEC to find out what they actually say ;)

F:
"I believe that to the original audience, the length of the “day” would not be important. The important thing would be Who created the world, and that He created from nothing (and thereby refuting other ANE creation myths that the original audience would be familiar with)."

But it WAS important. It was the whole basis for the 4th Commandment in Exodus 20:8-11! It loses all force unless the days of Creation are the same type of days as those of the working week. What would you propose -- we work for 6 million years and rest for 1 million years?
[QUOTE]

Like I told Dee Dee. The connection between the days of creation and the 4th commandment are undeniable. However, I don't see that a one to one correspondence is necessary.

[QUOTE]Socrates:
F:
"Also, the 24-hour day is based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, and the sun was not created until day four. I took this as an indication that the day (yom) in Genesis 1 was probably not intended to mean a literal 24-hour day."

(Yawn, stretch) all you need is a light source, created on day one, and the Earth rotating with respect to it--see How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created? (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp)


I will concede that I overstated my position when I said probably (see bold above), I should have said possible. All your argument does is provide a possibility, and it assumes a 24 hour interpretation. My position is not that the absence of the sun makes a 24 hour day impossible, but that it suggest that it might not be necessary.

Socrates:
F:
"Also, additional time text in the OT and the NT indicate that time is not the same for God as it is for man (1 day = a thousand years), so I thought that placing God’s creative “days” within mans understanding of a 24-hour day was an unnecessary anthropomorphizing of God. "

Answered at Q&A: 2 Peter 3:8 ¯ ‘one day is like a thousand years’ (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp)


Well I think I agree with the article more or less, with the possible exception of one point (hence my agnosticism on this)

I never thought that the creation dates were exactly 1000 years long, and I agree with the article that you linked to (which I had read before) that to say so was a gross abuse of the text.

I think and always have thought, that the use of ordinals in association with the word yom was a very strong point in favor of a YEC. However, I do not think that it is conclusive that the days must be 24 hours.

Socrates:
F:
"However, recently at least two people, neither of whom I consider to be hyper literalist, have stated and/or I inferred that they adopt the young earth view of creation."

Exactly. It comes from the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I am another YEC who has no problem with say, J.P. Holding's analysis of alleged Biblical contradictions, which show that crass hyperliteralism is fallacious.

The only reason that YEC was ever denied was the rise of so-called scientific proof of greater age of the Earth, NOT from the Hebrew text.

Furthermore, GP has pointed out something about the sequence of ordinals and cardinals in Genesis 1, and Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of theology and Hebrew and Concordia University, Illinois, has analyzed this pattern in Genesis )Steinmann, A., [Echad] as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002).

He concluded:


The YEC position is also essential because of the tight chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11, giving the age of the father at the birth of the next in line, and Jesus and the age of the world (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp#jesus_age), as well as the teaching that the physical death of humans and animals called nephesh chayyah is the result of sin.

I have addressed most of the rest of these issues that were raised by other people. On the issue of YEC, being rejected due to scientific theories I will address in my response to your other post.

Again, I am not trying to defend OEC or "bash" YEC. At this point, I want to get off the fence, and I am leaning toward YEC. However, I still have questions. I thank you for answering my concerns.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Socrates:
Faramir wrote:

"I do not want any scientific arguments for a young earth at this point please. "

This is ironic, because just about all conservative opponents of YEC admit that the Hebrew of Genesis teaches 6-day creation about 6000 years ago and a globe-covering flood, but they don't believe this because they are intimidated by "science". Answers in Genesis has a number of examples, e.g. Charles Hodge (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/c_hodge.asp), Gleason Archer (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/gleason_archer.asp) and Pattle Pun (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/pattle_pun.asp) .

I urge you to realise that all "dating" methods rely on assumptions about the past. So please don't follow the above people, but instead question man's fallible opinions about "science" rather than God's infallible Word!

I want to start by saying that I have read many of your post (I even made one my post of the day), so I have great respect for you. However, here I have to strongly disagree with you, at least as far as my position when I was an OEC and my understanding of other conservative OECers.

Speaking as a former OECer, when someone says that the OEC position favors science over the word of God, is comparing apples to oranges.

Most OECers hold that God has given us two revelation. His Holy Word the Bible (Specific Revelation) and His Creation (General Revelation). Both are inspired, both are inerrant. Theology, is fallible man's attempt to interpret Scripture (Specific Revelation). Science is fallible man's attempt to interpret Creation (General Revelation) Man, in our attempt to interpret either, is fallible.

The Specific and General Revelation rarely intersect with what they reveal about God. However, when they do, they will be in agreement, because they both have the some source, God. If there is a disagreement between theology and science it is either because the science is bad, or the theology is bad (or both).

I want to make clear that I for one never, never, never, never and never considered science above the Sacred, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, Perfect, and Error Free Word of God. NEVER. Do I make myself clear?

Also, as far as I know, most other conservative OECers feel this way too.

I will give you an example of bad theology being rejected for good science:

Bad Theology: The bible clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth.

Good Scone: The earth clearly revolves around the sun.

IMHO anytime there is an apparent contradiction between science and theology, both the science and the theology should be questioned. Yes, I believe that the word of God is perfect. I also believe just as strongly that man is fallible when interpreting the word of God. I also believe that man is fallible when interpreting the evidence of the creation of God.

The reason that I created this thread in the first place was that because I had an "epiphany" of sorts (I know I am probably misusing that word, but it is a common misuse).

I have long stated to my YEC friends that, even though I do not believe that Darwinian evolution is true, that based on the evidence available at the time of Darwin, it was a plausible theory. That is, had I lived at the time of Darwin, I might have accepted evolution as true. Since that time however the lack of transitional fossils, and the incredible complexity of the cell, have made evolution implausible to me.

Recently, I applied that same logic to the Big Bang theory, which I considered to be good science. However, it is still a relatively young theory, and it is possible that my acceptance of the Big Bang was premature. Also, although I enjoy "dabbling" in science, I am not a scientist and have no scientific training outside of core classes in HS and college. On the other hand, I do have a degree in Religious Studies, so I decided I should trust my understanding of scripture, more than my understanding of science.

Yes my former OEC position was formulated in part by science, but I also found that the OEC interpretation of Genesis to be compelling.

I no longer give as much credence to the Old Earth Science as I once did. However, I do think that a good argument can be made for either the YEC position or the OEC* position from scripture. I accept the possibility of both. In fact, when I was an OEC, I never believed with 100% certainty that the OEC position was correct (but about 98%). I always considered the YEC position possible.

That is why I started this thread.



*By OEC position I do not mean to imply that the scripture would in any way indicate days being billions of years long. I mean that the days are of indefinite duration, and science would then be free to fill in the exact date left ambiguous by the text. This was my position as an OEC as well.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Berean:

There isn't necessarily a contradiction there,Faramir.The idea that carnivores must eat meat to survive seems to be incorrect. Answers in Genesis published an article a while back about a lion,I think it was,whose preferred diet was plants.I looked for the article,but couldn't find it.Let me know If you want it and I'll keep looking. Anyway,I don't see that God would have to do any recreating.

Thanks Berean. I would really like to see that article. However, it seems to me that even if it is possible for a Lion (just one carnivorous beast) to live a vegetarian diet, that doesn't mean that all carnivorous beast can.

Also, it seems to me that predatory animals are designed to be able to stalk and kill prey. If the contradiction is not there, it would seem that God designed animals to be predators, even though He intended them to be vegetarians.

Again, I think that verse has problems for both the OEC and the YEC. To me, there are no easy answers. Of course there is an answer as God's Word is perfect, error free and infallible, I just don't know what it is.

Thanks once again for your input.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

To sum up, here is my current position:

I do not think that the original intent of the Genesis 1 narrative was to give any specific meaning to the work for day (yom). I do not think that the original audience would have given it much thought.

Here is a hypothetical conversation between a 21st century man (21), and one of the Children of Israel (CI)at that time.

21: Have you heard the new creation account Moses just wrote?

CI: Yea, it was awesome. It showed that Jehovah created the world out of nothing, not out of chaos like the pagan myths. It showed that man was the pinnacle of creation, not some by byproduct of divine war like the pagan myths. It showed that God created the world in an orderly fashion, unlike the pagan myths.

21: Yea. About that order. Those days in the creation story. Were they literal 24 hour day?

CI: I suppose so. The word day does mean that. I don't see why not.

21: What if I told you that some people where I come from say that the days were very long periods of time?

CI: If you knew the answer, why did you ask me the question. I suppose that they could be long periods of time. So what.

21: Well, which is it? 24 hour or long periods of time?

CI: Hello, McFly, anybody home. Did you not hear what I said. The story shows that Jehovah, created the world in an orderly fashion, out of nothing with man as the pinnacle of creation. This is contrary to all the pagan myths. What is up with you 21st century people and your annal obsession with exact time?

(Very similar to the argument about the women at the tomb. ie it doesn't matter)

OK so I took some liberty with the idioms, but I think I make my point.

I have come to the conclusion, thanks to the persuasive powers of those that have posted here, that if I had to choose between the text saying that day was 24 hour or the day was indefinite, I would have to say that the text in all likelihood speaks of a 24 hour day.

That is before I believed that the text indicated either indefinite period for day, or it did not matter. Whereas now, I believe that the text indicates either a 24 hour day or it did not matter.

I am still leaning toward it did not matter. But there is still a chance to convince me otherwise.

After all (Dee Dee) I was an eschatogical agnostic for quite awhile before I became a preterist.

[Berean]

Faramir:

Thanks Berean. I would really like to see that article. However, it seems to me that even if it is possible for a Lion (just one carnivorous beast) to live a vegetarian diet, that doesn't mean that all carnivorous beast can.
I don't know if you saw the link or not,but the article is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp (http://) (My thanks to 5S for finding it.)
It's true that just because one carnivorous beast can survive without meat that it doesn't mean they all can.The article admits this.
Also, it seems to me that predatory animals are designed to be able to stalk and kill prey. If the contradiction is not there, it would seem that God designed animals to be predators, even though He intended them to be vegetarians.
I agree,when you look at predatory animals today it seems they were perfectly designed for what they do.I had trouble with that too.But what reason do we have for thinking that they were designed as predators? All we know is what they generally do today.Yes,they are very good at killing,but it doesn't mean they were designed to do so. I heard an analogy that may explain better what I'm talking about.It had nothing to do with this problem ,but I think it applies. We know a hammer and a wrench are designed for different functions.However, you could use a wrench to pound a nail in,and it would work very well. If someone had always seen a nail pounded in with a wrench,they could very easily,but wrongly,assume it was designed for that.I think it's the same way with the predator thing.
I hope this better explains where I'm coming from.I'm not very eloquent.:)

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thanks for the link Berean, but for some reason it is not working for me.:argh:

[TheFiveSolas]

Faramir,
Here is the link again:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp

The reason why the one Berean gave didn't work was due to the fact that there was supposed to be an underscore before the word lion, for some reason Berean's link had a space.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

TheFiveSolas:
Faramir,
Here is the link again:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp

The reason why the one Berean gave didn't work was due to the fact that there was supposed to be an underscore before the word lion, for some reason Berean's link had a space.

Thanks 5 solas. That works

[Captain Ochre]

I can't seem to find any information on vegetarian lions that *isn't* connected (solely) with the _Little Tyke_ book published by the Theosophical publishing house.
Sorry but that's not one of the publishers who rates high on the trustworthiness scale.

I'm no expert on the vegetarianism issue, but as I understand it there are some proteins that are difficult or impossible to obtain through a vegetarian diet, proteins that are necessary to the health of an animal (barring the miraculous, or a least an unusual metabolism). Folks who place their carnivorous pets on a vegetarian diet typically use dietary supplements to forestall the development of health problems.

[Socrates]

I subscribe to Dr. John Sailhamer's view, btw (Genesis Unbound).



That's a worry. See this review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3genesis_unbound.asp) by a hermeneutics specialist.

[Socrates]

Faramir:

Thanks Berean. I would really like to see that article. However, it seems to me that even if it is possible for a Lion (just one carnivorous beast) to live a vegetarian diet, that doesn't mean that all carnivorous beast can.


In see that 5S and Berean have found the article for you -- good call, guys :) :thumb:. But they never said that this would apply in all cases. True, many people don't realise that some spiders use their webs to catch pollen for food, although this is temporary in this fallen world with cursed vegetation. Piranhas seem to have devolved from the vegetarian pacu. These articles and more are found in Q&A:Genesis--the Curse (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#curse). But this points out that there are other possible explanations for carnivory, and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

But this section should help, from Answers in Genesis's rebuttal to the PBS-TV series Evolution (which I bet the compromiser J.J. Ramsey adored) Episode 4: The Evolutionary Arms Race! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4a.asp):



Did God create carnivory?

According to the Bible, the original diet of both humans and animals was vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). So how do creationists explain carnivory today? This episode showed many examples of animals killing other animals, which doesn’t seem like a ‘very good’ creation (Gen. 1:31). ). According to the Bible, death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26) and was introduced with Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17, Gen. 3:17–19, Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21–22). While these refer explicitly to human death, Adam’s sin affected the whole creation (Rom. 8:20–22), and this is further supported by the fact that the restored creation will have no carnivory (Isaiah 65:25). How carnivory occurred is not specifically stated, but since creation was finished after Day 6 (Gen. 2:1–3), there is no possibility that God created new carnivorous animals. Instead, creationists have three explanations in general, although the specific explanation depends on the particular case. This is explained further in the Answers Book, Ch. 6 (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c008.html):

The Bible appears not to regard insects as living in the same sense as humans and vertebrate animals—they are never referred to as nephesh chayyah, unlike humans and even fish.

Before the Fall, many attack/defense structures could have been used in a vegetarian lifestyle. For example, even today, some baby spiders use their webs to trap pollen for food, and there was the case of The lion that wouldn’t eat meat. Even many poisons actually have beneficial purposes in small amounts. Even this PBS episode pointed out that microbes ‘help prime the immune system’, and that many allergies might be due to a society that’s too clean.

God foreknew the Fall, so He programmed creatures with the information for design features for attack and defense that they would need in a cursed world. This information was ‘switched on’ at the Fall.

For the poisonous newt, it seems that #3 is the best explanation for the molecular structure of the deadly toxin itself and the poison glands on the skin, as opposed to the possibility of increasing its production rate by information-losing mutations and natural selection. #3 is the best explanation for structures that seem specifically designed for attack and defense.

[johnransom]

Socrates:
Faramir wrote:

"I do not want any scientific arguments for a young earth at this point please. "

This is ironic, because just about all conservative opponents of YEC admit that the Hebrew of Genesis teaches 6-day creation about 6000 years ago and a globe-covering flood, but they don't believe this because they are intimidated by "science". Answers in Genesis has a number of examples, e.g. Charles Hodge (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/c_hodge.asp), Gleason Archer (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/gleason_archer.asp) and Pattle Pun (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/pattle_pun.asp) .

I urge you to realise that all "dating" methods rely on assumptions about the past. So please don't follow the above people, but instead question man's fallible opinions about "science" rather than God's infallible Word!

Be most careful: AiG is on very shaky hermeneutical ground here. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using the findings of external investigations, scientific or otherwise, to assess the validity, meaning and intent of Biblical statements. In fact, it is impossible not to. A "uniformitarian" view of the Bible is unavoidable.

Moreover, AiG misrepresents the authors cited - especially Archer, whose quote specifically says that the textual interpretation of literal 24-hour days is not granted. As I remember Archer's argument, it relates largely to the sixth creative day and the creation of man. In Genesis 1, both man and woman are created on the same day, and, he feels, rather late in the day. However, Genesis 2 makes it clear that man and woman were not created at the same time - obviously not, since woman was created out of man. Moreover, woman was created because it became evident that man needed a companion, i.e., that he was lonely. Now it does not seem reasonable that man would become lonely on the very first day of his existence (especially if that day was already almost over). No, it would seem more likely that a good period of time passes before woman is created.

As for criticisms of dating methods - these have been debunked pretty convincingly.

My view on Genesis 1 - the days are pretty obviously not literal. The formal structure of the entire chapter is manifestly non-literal, being poetic and allegorical in style. The creation does not follow a logical order, and since when does evening+morning=day? That's like saying spring+fall=year. And you can't have a day without the sun, even if a day is actually dependent on the Earth's rotation - you need a referent to guage that rotation, and in any event I doubt ANE cosmology knew the Earth spins anyway.

[Socrates]

johnransom wrote:


Be most careful: AiG is on very shaky hermeneutical ground here. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using the findings of external investigations, scientific or otherwise, to assess the validity, meaning and intent of Biblical statements. In fact, it is impossible not to. A "uniformitarian" view of the Bible is unavoidable.


What nonsense! You provide little information, and this is not meant to be a debate. But there is a world of difference in getting extrabiblical information about the culture to ascertain what the passage would have meant to its original readers, and using "science" to twist the passage to teach something diametrically opposed to its original intended meaning.

An example of the former would be the http://www.tektonics.org/ articles on the Context Group and Wisdom literature, which are all perfectly acceptable. This is hugely different from the eisegesis from creation compromisers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp).


Moreover, AiG misrepresents the authors cited - especially Archer, whose quote specifically says that the textual interpretation of literal 24-hour days is not granted.


The misrepresentation is in your mind. Yes, they make it clear that Archer doesn't believe that Genesis 1 teaches ordinary days, but that his main motivation is "Science" rather than the Hebrew.


As I remember Archer's argument, it relates largely to the sixth creative day and the creation of man. In Genesis 1, both man and woman are created on the same day, and, he feels, rather late in the day. However, Genesis 2 makes it clear that man and woman were not created at the same time - obviously not, since woman was created out of man. Moreover, woman was created because it became evident that man needed a companion, i.e., that he was lonely. Now it does not seem reasonable that man would become lonely on the very first day of his existence (especially if that day was already almost over). No, it would seem more likely that a good period of time passes before woman is created.



How subjective can you get!? How long would Adam need to become lonely? Fact, there is nothing to indicate that Adam was created late in the day, that he needed a lot of time to name all the animals (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1112animals.asp), and see that none was a helper suitable for him.


As for criticisms of dating methods - these have been debunked pretty convincingly.


What would you know?


My view on Genesis 1 - the days are pretty obviously not literal. The formal structure of the entire chapter is manifestly non-literal, being poetic and allegorical in style.

:duh: :argh: I already answered that!! It is NOT poetic since it lacks parallelism. It has all the earmarks of being historical narrative with the waw consecutive. Also, Hebrew narrative has a peculiar verb order, just what is found in Genesis 1: i.e., only the first verb is perfect, while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfect.

The creation does not follow a logical order, ...

No, judging from this post, it's your mind that lacks logical order.

... and since when does evening+morning=day? That's like saying spring+fall=year.

Why not find out what your opponents actually teach :rant: ? The argument is that the word yom (day) means a 24-hour day when it is associated with the words erev or boqer. And this is so everywhere else in the OT.


And you can't have a day without the sun, even if a day is actually dependent on the Earth's rotation - you need a referent to guage that rotation, and in any event I doubt ANE cosmology knew the Earth spins anyway.


:duh: :argh: I already answered that too!! Pay attention if you desire credibility. There was a LIGHT source created on Day 1.

[Socrates]

Geebob wrote:

I don't consider Christ's words on marriage to be vary strong evidence for a strictly literal view. Whether there was a first couple or a first community (as CS Lewis suggests), the creation myth (I'm using this in a totally neutral way in terms of taking it historically literal or not) tells us essential truth about man and woman and their relation to God. Since What Jesus says is in line with the essence of this story, it has authority from the myth and demonstrates the consistency of what Jesus is saying with the myth.

OK, let's look at His words from Mark 10:6-9:


But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."


First, you will notice that Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as straightforward history. And note especially the phrase "the two shall become one flesh". This is a clincher that it's referring to the first couple, not first community. This couple is the model for all their descendants to follow.

And Geebob's argument doesn't affect the point that the people were there "from the beginning of creation." On a straightforward chronology, they were created on the 6th day about 4000 years before Jesus spoke. If you draw this on a number line, the creation of manking would be 0.0004% away from the beginning.

But this is diametrically opposite to what long-age compromisers teach. E.g. well known progressive creationist Hugh Ross says (The Fingerprint of God, p. 178):


‘If the time since the creation of the universe were scaled down to a single year, the whole of human history would be less than one minute.’


Also, Paul calls Adam "the first man" (1 Cor. 15:45) and Adam names his wife Chava ("Eve") because she was the mother of all living (chay) (Genesis 3:20).

[Socrates]

Renegade Drow wrote:


The earth is actually old (geologically), with young life. I really don’t know if there is any merit to it, as it has been a topic that doesn’t really interest me much.

No merit at all, sorry. As has been pointed out, historically the Church had no doubt that the Earth was about 6000 years old. This was questioned NOT because of the Hebrew, but the rise of old-Earth ideas in "science".

While the above view gets rid of the no-death-before-sin problem, it fails to counter most of the others. And although all compromise views are motivated primarily by "Science", this doesn't work.

The problem is that most of the rocks that are used to "date" the Earth at billions of years old do not occur in isolation. They are associated with rocks bearing the fossils which are also "dated" at millions or even billions if years old. E.g. a lava flow, which can allegedly by radiometrically dated, overlying sandstone with shellfish fossils, which must have been laid down before the lava flow. Since the fossils are the remains of once-living things, if you accept the "dating" methods of an old Earth, you're bound to accept old life.

[dizzle]

Socrates...this would be a good debate though.... interested in posting a challenge in the Gym? I think that would be very beneficial to the readers to see the issues presented and rebutted....

[Socrates]

Dee Dee wrote:

Socrates...this would be a good debate though.... interested in posting a challenge in the Gym? I think that would be very beneficial to the readers to see the issues presented and rebutted....


For now, how about just:

Resolved: If we relied on the Bible alone, we would believe that the world was created in 6 24-hour days about 6000 years ago; there was a globe-covering flood, and humans and animals do not have a common ancestor.

Therefore anyone who wanted to oppose this would need to bring Scriptural arguments against these propositions, NOT "scientific" ones.

This way, for now, we can stick to exegesis and hermeneutics. There are other possible debates on whether Scripture should be our ultimate authority on origins, or whether "science" should cause reinterpretation.

Scientific arguments are another kettle of fish again. But I wanted to settle the Biblical issues before all else. It would be interesting to see how anti-YECs will insist on bringing "science" into it. I can probably handle that as well, but I don't want it to be the priority --- this is the Theology Web after all!

[dizzle]

Hey Socrates... do you mind if I repost that challenge in the Gym??

[Socrates]

OK then ;)

[dizzle]

Cool :thumb: I will do it later and post the link... we appear to have a broken there this morning and I cannot start a new thread. I alerted our allwise Webmasters, otherwise known as yxboom and Cirisme, to the problems.

Here is the link to the challenge

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=14380#post14380

[GrayPilgrim]

Socrates:
Furthermore, GP has pointed out something about the sequence of ordinals and cardinals in Genesis 1, and Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of theology and Hebrew and Concordia University, Illinois, has analyzed this pattern in Genesis )Steinmann, A., [Echad] as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002).


It was actually Steinmann's article that got me thinking along those lines in preperation for a Sunday school Class.

[GrayPilgrim]

Socrates:


That's a worry. See this review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3genesis_unbound.asp) by a hermeneutics specialist.

For truth in advertising, for two years of my time at TEDS I was a TA to one of Sailhamer's former students, so that will show you where I am coming from.

I have not read Genesis Unbound, but I love his Intro to OT Theology (IOTT) and "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible" in Journal of the Evangelcial Theolofical Society, vol. 44, No. 1. Moroeover, I have used his The Pentateuch as Narrative. While I concur that Sailhamer's innovative restricitve view of chapter 1 is problematic, the article appears to me to be full of the standard anti-Sailhamer bias that one finds prevalent.

I was just skimming Sailhamer's The Pentateuch as Narrative and found not one mention of the gap theory. Not one mention of long peridos of time. Instead I found Sailhammer discussing how the phrase brshyt instead notes the comencement of something, and how this phrase is genreally linke with the its completion axryt, and so that Gen 1:1 presuposes the look for an end. He does not indicate any life prior to its place in the creation order. Meanwhile, he does still propose his preperation of Eden/Promised Land theory as the focus of htis chapter. However, it is interesting that he shows how the mereism "Heavens and Earth" embodies all creation. SO Sailhamer is arguing that this chaoter describes the creation ex nihlo of everything albeit with special focus on the Promised Land.

Other examples of the anti-Sailhamer bias, here are two (I have a few others but they are more annecdotal), with my understanding of why it is so.

Example 1:a few years ago Sailhammer went to a session at the annual meeting of ETS on contemporary interpretations of Genesis. The person who delivered the talk kept lumping Sailhammer in to the camp that viewed the book as myth. At the end of the talk Sailhammer asked this person the question, "Did you even read my book?" The answer, "No, I did not."

Example 2: People claim that he denies inerrancy andthe historicity of the text. Why? Because they have failed to apprehend and comprehend his view. Sailhammer in IOTT argues that the goal in interpretation is not to reconstruct the events portrayed in the text, but rather to interpret what the text says about the event. For Sailhammer historicity is an apologetic, not an interprative issue. IMHO he is correct.

Why do I think there is this anti-Sailhamerian bias? He is as subtle and gentle as a tornado. Sailhamer unfortunately needs to learn that one can often catch more flies with honey than vinegar. At TEDS he ran afowl of one of the more influential profs, and thus it lead to some disention amonfg the profs. Much of it stemmed from Sailhamer, rightly IMO, rejecting the basis for historical-critical study of the text and thus the method. See Hans Frei's The Eclispe of Biblical Narrative in which he demosntrates that the historical-critical approach was founded to debunk the Gospels and other Biblical texts (Fri advocates the method, but his analysis is still good), and most Gospel studies among Evangelicals are based on it, then Sailhamer in a most undiplomatic manner had a "disagreement" witha particular NT professor. Now, as if Sailhamer had only disagreed as accedemics are wont to do, there would have been no problem. However, Sailhamer went too far and atttacked this person as being shall we say a theological "twit" :huh: for using the historical-method. This unfortunately is not the exception, but more the way that Sailhamer has engaged in debate, thus not exactly an adherent to the genteler forms of debate.

GP

[yxboom]

Notice: This is a strictly Q&A started by Faramir to YEC, unless requested by Faramir opposing views are NOT allowed to participate in this thread!

Debates do not take place here. For further understanding on the guidelines for this section please refer to the Liberal Arts Dept. Guidelines (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=12908#post12908)

Thanks.

[Socrates]

Gray Pilgrim

I happen to know the author of the review (we are both Australians, and the major Creation Camps here often result in ardent YECs getting to know each other) and he actually has a pro-Sailhamer bias if anything. He appreciates his Hebrew scholarship in other areas, and was just very disappointed with his compromise on Genesis.

In any case, to get back to YEC, there seems to be little argument from anyone here based on the actual Hebrew text that Genesis really does teach this. This has only been questioned by importing external ideas to the text. Even the allegorizers Origen and Augustine explicitly affirmed that the Earth was a few thousand years old.