@modupe01, I shall come back to answer to the other comments in yours - all very well appreciated. Perhaps that would be in another thread for that purpose, so that we don't muddle things up for the topic of thread. Thanks.

@viaro,
thank you for the keen observation and correction on my use of the word literarily instead of literally.

viaro:

For me, there is a difference between literarily and literally:

* literarily - in a literary manner, in regards to literature

* literally - in the exact manner that cannot be interpreted any other way

The Biblical records in many places are both literary and literal to me; but not so in some other parts. These other parts may be parabolic, symbolic, or allegorical (in which case they are addressing general truths in principle). What I believe does not have to be authority for anyone, for the views I have are based on my own understanding and deductions from what I read in the Biblical texts. Certainly, you may have issues with many people, and that is especially based on what they read and how they interpret those texts.

I think you might have meant to say "literally true", rather than literarily true - the latter would be saying that something is true according to the style of literature. . . which is not the same as literality. Either way, it is not only the literature that should be examined - but the examiner himself ought to be scrutinised as well. This is true especially where we all are reading the same set of data and yet coming up with diverse interpretations (this is also the case even in science). Some people may see things differently from others, or a few other people might have missed some small details which led them to draw shaking conclusions. Either way, it is not the documents or texts that might be at fault, but rather the interpreters also might have a problem understanding a certain point due to any number of things. . including personal bias.

No, it is not "more correct" to draw that kind of assumption, because you may be doing so hastily where you have not understood anything in them yourself.

Why is it not more correct? Do those myths make any literal sense to you? Why should your own interpretation be different from that of any other christian if you are all truly guided by the same God/holy spirit who is suppose to know all things?

By the way why is it that only well educated christians that have the power of logic/science at their disposal adopt your kind of views on creation/adam/messiah? Your view is a very simple one and here is its summary IMO:

The Bible is the word of God and every other knowledge gained through science (or other means) can not make any part of it invalid.

VALIDATOR:

thank you for the keen observation and correction on my use of the word literarily instead of literally.

Not a big deal, bro. . we all make mistakes.

Why is it not more correct? Do those myths make any literal sense to you?

Yes, they do. . whether anyone chooses to call them myths, legends, etc., does not change the fact of its meaning to me. For one, the Bible is not the only source of knowledge about origins and cosmologies. There are many other sources that record ancient civilizations that point back to a creation; and I dare say that even the Bible acknowledges a few of these civilizations without giving details about them. Many things are merely mentioned and taken for granted without being elaborated upon in the Bible, and only in recent times are many Christians beginning to come to terms with the fact.

Why should your own interpretation be different from that of any other christian if you are all truly guided by the same God/holy spirit who is suppose to know all things?

Well, I don't expect everyone to have the same interpretation of the Biblical texts whether or not we make any claims of being guided by the same God. The Bible even takes for granted the fact that our understanding may yield very different views - whether for good or for bad. Not only so, it is a Biblical fact that we shall not know every thing there is to know nor understand every mystery there is to understand at the present time -

* 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know' - 1 Corinthians 8:2

* 'Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.'
Psalm 139:6

We cannot know everything there is to know nor even have the same interpretation to every text in the Bible. In my opinion, if any Christian (or even scientist) claims that he knows and understands everything, there's more hope for a fool than for him.

By the way why is it that only well educated christians that have the power of logic/science at their disposal adopt your kind of views on creation/adam/messiah?

I don't know why that is so, nor am I endorsing the idea that 'only well educated Christians' with logic can have such views on creation and the Messiah - I don't know if this is true of all Christians all over the world, in as much as I don't know every Christian everywhere.

Your view is a very simple one and here is its summary IMO:

The Bible is the word of God and every other knowledge gained through science (or other means) can not make any part of it invalid.

Well, that's your opinion, but it need not be a reflection or summary of everything about my position. Science is not an end in itself, and it does not answer all questions of life and reality. There is a point where religion and science meet and travel together - but their natures are distinct and the questions either of them seek to answer are also distinct.

Both religious people and scientists can have very flawed interpretations of our existence and the realities of our world when they worship either science or religion. Science does not make categorical or conclusive pronouncements on the nature of religion; nor can people be so brash as to try and make their religion the authority over science. What is unfortunate to observe is when people try to assume that science is the answer to all questions about the world; and equally sad is when religious people (whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc., etc., etc.,) try to make their own religion the final authority about everything in the world.

Hahaha ,in the face of the Almighty God would this earth and its deceptive evolution pass away but the word of God(bible would stand forever.anyway,u ain't the first neither the second generation to attack the bible.all those generations are already gone and urs will and i promise u dat the word of God will continue to grow.hw can u dare prove d bible wrong? Even all geniue science supports what the bible says.isaiah said the earth is spherical in shape even though he wasn't a scientist and after many failure of science and astrology.they confirmed what isaiah said.HMM

viaro:

Both religious people and scientists can have very flawed interpretations of our existence and the realities of our world when they worship either science or religion. Science does not make categorical or conclusive pronouncements on the nature of religion; nor can people be so brash as to try and make their religion the authority over science. What is unfortunate to observe is when people try to assume that science is the answer to all questions about the world; and equally sad is when religious people (whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc., etc., etc.,) try to make their own religion the final authority about everything in the world.

viaro my pal,
my views may not be too far away from yours.
And I really like the way you analyze issues without using mere assertions. I hope we all learn from it.Keep it up bro.

Christ and the Writings of Moses
November 18, 2009

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47)

This sharp rebuke by Jesus to the Jewish leaders who were seeking an occasion to have Him executed came as the climax to a long message following His miracle at the pool of Bethesda.  These Jews always made a great show of allegiance to the teachings of Moses in the Pentateuch, so Jesus pointed out that this was hypocritical, since Moses "wrote of me"--[/i]yet they refused to [i]"believe my words."

There are many "Christian" intellectuals today who are, if anything, involved in even greater hypocrisy, professing to believe in Christ while rejecting the plain teachings of Genesis and the other books of Moses.  The Lord Jesus, for example, taught that "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (quoting Genesis 1:27) and also that, therefore, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (quoting Genesis 2:24).  But these compromising Christians insist that He was quoting from two contradictory accounts of creation, and also that men and women were there not at the "beginning" of creation, but came along about 4.5 billion years after the creation of the earth and about 15 billion years after the beginning of the cosmos.

The Lord also taught that the Genesis Flood was global and cataclysmic (Luke 17:26-27), whereas the compromisers argue that it was either local or tranquil or both.  They also commonly seek to explain away the miracle of the Red Sea parting, the daily bread from heaven, and other mighty miracles recorded in the books of Moses.  Rejecting Moses and his teaching to their shame, how can they really believe in Christ when they reject His words? HMM

[size=18pt]Still waiting for Darwins missing link  [/size]

dexmond:

[size=18pt]Still waiting for Darwins missing link  [/size]

Your grand children will most likely still be waiting for it by the time they are 90 yrs old.

Darwin himself said he was comfounded that all the fossils that they saw were fully developed. Evolutionists are day-dreaming

dexmond:

[size=18pt]Still waiting for Darwins missing link [/size]

Darwin's missing link has been identified! Has it?

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified.

Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early 50's . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon test proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the East Indies."

-- Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century

The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, Time magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article submitted, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." And don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." Science magazine, vol. 224, 1984 (emphasis added)

Evolutionary fraud indeed.

Instant Creation

"Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together." (Isaiah 48:13)

This is one of many passages in Scripture which not only tells us that God is Creator of both heaven and earth, but also that He created them instantaneously. Creation is not a "process," but a miraculous event! With a wave of the hand, so to speak, God simply called them into being.

This is also the testimony of the incomparable account of creation in Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This primeval testimony does not say: "From the beginning, God has been creating heaven and earth" as theistic evolutionists would say. Creation of all things was an event completed in the past.

The divinely inspired psalmist agrees: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. . . . For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast" (Psalm 33:6, 9). "For he commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever" (Psalm 148:5-6).

Furthermore, according to our text, when God spoke into existence the heavens and the earth, they both proceeded to "stand up together!" He did not create the heavens 15 billion years ago, then the earth only about five billion years ago, as some creationists allege. They stood up together! "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11).

It is important to recognise the recent creation of all things, not only because God said so, but also because the multi-billion-year framework of cosmic evolution, pushing God as far away and long ago as possible, is merely the modern pseudoscientific way of getting rid of Him altogether! Christians should not compromise with such a system! HMM

@Modupe

Don't mind them. That was how they said dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago before man evolved. Yet, evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with man. They are busy hiding information and evidence that is against their "faith" ( it appears scientists no longer believe in rigor but in faith) from the public. The Devil is indeed mad.

dexmond:

Yet, evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with man. They are busy keeping the information away from the public.

Hallo dexmond, could you please share more on your inference that dinosaurs lived with man? I don't know much about this, and the few bits of info here and there on the net have not been quite helpful. So could you please point me to a sound research ascertaining that conclusion? Many thanks.

@ Viaro

I will refer you to a video shortly but they don't get media attention because satan-owned media will never give them publicity for it will be him fighting against himself. Just give me a few minutes.

^^^ Okay.

@ Viaro

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html

My question to the paleontologist that made this find is: How did the Tissues manage to survive for 65-100 million years? Does this evidence not support the theory of a relatively young earth?

Check out this site.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs
Please ignore the fact that they are Christians and look at the evidence presented and ask your mind questions.

@dexmond,

Thank you so much for those links. I had not seen the one at NOVA, but I think it's a good place where I sometimes hang out when I want to boggle my mind. For instance, I very much enjoyed the various musings of some celebrated scientists on 'Einstein's Big Idea', the 'm=e/c²' (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/). The other link at YouTube, I have to try and watch it again to grasp what exactly the guy was trying to present.

That said, I'm sorry to say that there does not seem to be sufficient grounds for some expressed reactions, especially the idea that dinosaurs lived with man. Maybe, maybe not. The thing is that many people are drawing unnecessary (and perhaps unfounded) conclusions from Dr. Mary Schweitzer's work/findings on the dinosaur's tissues. I don't think that the idea that 'dinosaurs lived with man' is what Dr. Schweitzer's work was about; and there is no reason to tie her research findings to that inference.

The major problem I have is the question that necessarily emerges from that conclusion, which is captured in your poser: "Does this evidence not support the theory of a relatively young earth?" My answer? No. Let me explain:

1. First, what is the "evidence" here? That word "evidence" seems to have been twisted to mean what it does not mean in this context. It was simply a research finding, and does not serve as "evidence" of what we want to argue. This is why I applaud Dr. Schweitzer's statement that "just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is." We ought to be careful in what we are trying to argue. When we say "evidence", we must ask: 'what is the question?'

2. Now, if we ask: 'what is the question?', we shall find that Dr. Schweitzer did not set out to prove anything about a "relatively young earth" (RYE). That was not the premise of her work (I stand to be corrected on that). Dinosaurs are interesting creatures to research; but they are not the answers anyone should seek for "evidence" of 'RYE'. There are just too many things to consider for the age of the earth, and indeed for the age of the universe!

3. But as to the idea of dinosaurs serving as "evidence" for RYE, my question is this:

what caused the 'extinction' of dinosaurs that did not affect man?

There are a lot of suggestive answers to that question; but the point in my asking is that it could help the proponents of RYE to rethink their postulations. A 'relatively young earth' would suggest to many people that the earth is no older than about 12, 000 years counting back in time - but then, it is easier to speak about lions and tigers living with man (and that is still evident today) than to argue for "evidence" from a research that does not point in that direction.

All the same, thank you for those links.

@Viaro

Truth I'm not a scientist. But questions abound that need answers. Christians have always maintained that every scientific discovery supports the bible. What are we to say of rock engravings with the pictures of dinosaur? What do you say about this link. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mokele.html

dexmond:

What do you say about this link. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mokele.html

Quite an interesting read. However, let me remind you here of the salient point: the question of 'evidence' and the 'relatively young earth'.

Again, there doesn't seem to be any pointers in that article to the idea of a 'RYE'; and the anecdotes about 'Mokele-Mbembe' do not exactly establish much, other than the recurring decimal that 'it is believed to be' a sauropod type of dinosaur. It would remind me of the effort to find the Loch Ness monster (speculated to be from a line of long-surviving plesiosaurs), and other species like elasmosaurs and Cryptoclidus.

Accounts like this happen between times; but are they the "evidence" for a 'relatively young earth'?

viaro:

@modupe01, thank you for your reply and observations. Very interesting, and I understand where you're coming from. I only wish that you had taken a closer look at the distinctions I made between those words - that is how Scripture declares them in those verses.

I also thank you for taking the time to painstakingly respond to some if not all of my objections.  I have been expecting you to respond to the rest of my points or rather open another post to address them, hence my late posts.

viaro:

It is true and healthy that faithful followers of Jesus Christ should not be deviating from what He declared and affirmed. In that vein, I'm happy to note that my observations have not deviated from His, at least in so far as I read all the verses together for a coherent picture.

You are entitled to your own opinion on these matters I still believe that God did not leave it open for any private interpretation, the text and contexts speaks for itself.

viaro:

Now, Mark 10:6 is interesting (as is the synoptic in Matthew 19:4) - but do passages like that make Him a "YEC" - young earth creationist? No, I don't think so.

Let us see.

viaro:

(1) In the first place, we know that the complete picture of the thinking of our Lord Jesus Christ does not lead to the idea that He saw the earth as a young or recent creation of some 6,000 years old. When the phrase "in the beginning" is used in Scripture, it does not necessarily all point to a dating system beginning with the 'first day' - they are used differently.

If you read Mark 10:6-9 you will see the context in which Jesus was talking.  He was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively.  By quoting from both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, Jesus shows that these chapters are not contradictory, as some may claim.  Chapter 2 merely gives the details of chapter 1 just as Genesis 1:2 gives the description of Genesis 1:1.  A sports comentator is not in error when (after a game) he gives in-depth analysis and fails to repeat every detail in chronological order.  He is merely reviewing the completed game by mentioning the highlights.

viaro:

(2) If we look prophetically in Proverbs 8:23 (which many Christians believe is pointing to the prophetic declaration of Christ), we find that even the Lord Jesus Himself spoke about an age of existence long before even the earth was - and in that passage, He mentions "the beginning" as a time before the creation of the earth:

     "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was"

(3)  That verse speaks about "the beginning" as a time when even the earth was not yet existing! Thus, we have to be very careful when we're talking about "the beginning" - it does not necessarily refer to the time when Adam was created - because even before Adam, life in biological forms in animate beings were clearly distinguished in male and female forms, which is not merely a matter of "man and woman".

This is a verse commonly quoted by the JW's when they claim that Jesus was "made" of the seed of David (that Jesus was a god "created by Jehovah" to die for our sins), they point to Proverbs 8:22-35 for their justification.  However, the Bible is speaking here of the personification of "wisdom" (verse 12).  Jesus had no beginning and He was not created but was begotten as the only begotten Son of God when He was incarnated 2,000 years ago.

viaro:

(4)  When Jesus spoke of "the beginning" in such passages as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, he said 'male and female' - not 'man and woman'. I contend that He clearly was pointing out creation in broad terms rather than an idea presupposing a theory of YEC-ism.

If you read it in context and without any predetermined bias you will realise that Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively as other animate living organisms do not marry.

viaro:

(5)  Now,  the point in (4) above might startle many of us Christians - but that is only if we have been thinking that the phrase "in the beginning" always refers to the creation that occurred within the time frame as interpreted to support YEC. That is not true - because if that were true, it would mean that even John 1:1 translates into an idea that the Divine Word was 6,000 years old! Afterall, that verse also mentions 'in the beginning' . . "in the beginning was the Word". Is that clause there ("in the beginning" also pointing to a YEC? Clearly not - rather, in harmony with Prov. 8:23, it was a "beginning" that was much, much earlier than our traditional YEC-6,000 years old!

The JW's also think that Jesus had a beginning when they translate that verse to mean that he was a god.  They may refer to John 14:28 in which Jesus said, "I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I," but they fail to show why Jesus said the Father was greater: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,,  that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Hebrew 2:9).  In Romans 1:3, the word used to refer to the incarnation ("made" is ginomai, which means "assembled."  A body was prepared for God to manifest Himself in the flesh;

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).

viaro:

(6)  Another thing we have to understand: when Scripture speaks about the creation of the world including the earth, God does not set the date as recent as 6,000 old. Read Hebrews 1:6 where it is said that He "bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world" - when did this happen, modupe01? When the God bring in the firstbegotten into the world? The answer is in what follows - at the very time when He asked the angels to worship the Son! Do you know when that very thing happened? No, not after Adam was created - rather, there are some verses right in the Bible that shows that such a thing occured LONG BEFORE Adam was created! The point is that the world (including the earth) predates Adam such that there was a time when the Son of God Himself stepped into the mystery of the creation - "when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world".

With all these eisegesis we often end up with spurious interpretations that are not necessary.  Jesus before His incarnation was the Second Person in the Godhead called the Word, it was during His incarnation that He became the only begotten Son of God and it was at this point that the Father in heaven commanded the angels to worship Him.  This redemption plan was new to the angels and they would not have worshipped Him if the Father had not commanded them to.  It was only God that we are to worship. Jesus Christ is God.

viaro:

(7)  Now, maybe I would find the opportunity to open this subject in detail; but focusing on Mark 10:6, we should not confuse "male and female" for 'man and woman' - no. Even the animals also appear as 'male and female' without being human beings (see Gen. 7:16 - "male and female of all flesh". As such, Christ was laying down a cardinal truth: animate life in the flesh (including those that predated Adam and those that came after) were created in distinct sexes - "male and female".

Jesus was talking about male and female.  Read what Jesus was quoting in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them."

viaro:

From the foregoing, we see why the idea of a 6,000 year-old YEC theory is an assumption that caters for traditional interpretations of Scripture and is froth with many problems. The YE Creationist has to account for those verses that show that "in the beginning" is also a time epoch that is far older than 6,000 years - otherwise they would have to say that John 1:1 ('in the beginning') is also 6,000 years old! Can they gamble on that?

If these would help to stir your thinking, then I shall be back much later to share on other comments you made.

Cheers.

I believe that I have been able to point out that the Bible says what it means and means what it says without any foreign interpretation needed.  With time I may be able to provide reasons these are so and why your standpoint is a dangerous stand to take.

viaro:

It is possible for 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' to be taken as a literal 24hrs. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case - not because we are looking for excuses from outside influence to stretch the days and nights in Genesis 1 into eons and epochs.

That is what it appears to me, the fact that you are looking for excuses from outside influences to stretch the days and nights into billions of years.

viaro:

There are a few reasons why the time there (at least for me) does not necessarily refer to a 24hr time frame:

(1) Genesis 1 does not tell us anything about when certain things were created. It just mentions them and takes them for granted. An example? Water. You will not find any verse in that chapter telling you that God created water on any particular day. . count them: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th day - none! The 7th is not included because He rested on that day. Rather, it just takes it for granted from as early as verse 2 - " the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

When I read the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty, it tells me all that I need to know about how long it took Him to create the universe and earth.  He said in Exodus 20:11 and I quote again; "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"  This verse mentions the creation of the universe and all that is within it including the sun and seas.

viaro:

(2) Turning to the NT, the apostle Peter makes a remarkable statement in 2 Peter 3:5 --

'by the word of God the heavens were of old,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

Notice, please: Peter was describing the primordial condition of the earth and noted that it was standing "out of" the water - and also "in" the water. Many people have assumed that Peter was describing a situation akin to the second day Genesis 1. However, it is strongly implying (to me, at least) that he was thinking more in terms of the primordial condition of the earth which Gen. 1:2 describes as "the face of the deep".

"And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved to fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"

Peter, here tells us that the scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth and that they will also be ignorant of Noah's Flood.  Peter had no doubt of the Genesis account of Noah's Flood and he went on to warn us of the impending judgment.  He said nothing of the premordial scum that evolutionists assume of today.  You can now see that the gap theory does away with the evidence for the historical event of the global Flood.

viaro:

(3) To this end, would it be accurate to infer a 24hr period for the primordial condition of the earth? I don't think so - especially because no one knows just how long "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" in Genesis 1:2 before light appeared in verse 3.

God left us in no doubt as to when, how, what and how long it took Him to create.  He said in Psalm 33:6,9 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.  For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" 

viaro:

(4) Again, let us think a little deeper: we have noted the example of water as taken for granted in Genesis 1 - we are not told just when God created water in all those days (1st to 6th). Another example is the Sun - we are not told when the Sun was created. We know that many people read Psalm 136:7-9 take for granted that the greater light refers to 'the sun' and the lesser light refers to 'the moon' in Genesis 1:16 - but that is just conveniently plugging holes. The earlier verses from 3 and 14-15 of Genesis 1 already spoke about lights even before talking about the lesser light and greater light in verse 16!

I believe and affirm that Genesis chapter 1 is clear enough on what and when God created.

viaro:

(5) From the above, we see that there are certain elements taken for granted in Genesis 1 (such as water and the sun) - nobody knows when in all those days they were created. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that tells us anything about the very day they were created.

If you read without the need to include the billion of years into Gen.1:2 you will see what am talking about.

viaro:

(6) Consequently, we understand that there are also so many other things described in the Bible that were already created and established, but which are not described in the epochs or 'days' in Genesis 1!

These are some very small matters to help us think when we form our thoughts about creation. The universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years old - and all these I've shown without any outside influence like paleontology or archeology.

Many sincere Christians have invented reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid intellectual conflicts with popular scientific ideas.  These theories are designed to fit in with scientific concepts that arose in the 1800s and are still popular today.  I hope to come back with more reasons why this position cannot be sustainable in this day and age, even the evolutionists know that it doesn't add up.

@modupe01,

modupe01:

I also thank you for taking the time to painstakingly respond to some if not all of my objections.  I have been expecting you to respond to the rest of my points or rather open another post to address them, hence my late posts.

My apologies. Somehow a lot of things came my way and my remembrance might have been clouded. It would be nice if you could point out the other points I missed earlier in yours.

You are entitled to your own opinion on these matters I still believe that God did not leave it open for any private interpretation, the text and contexts speaks for itself.

While I appreciate the right of people to have their own opinions on anything, there's an undeniable fact that people tend to interpret anything they read from the Bible. There is not a single verse that anyone can just read and not seek its meaning - and it is in finding meaning that interpretations are employed. Even the Lord Jesus Himself made that point so very clear in Luke 10:26 -

He said unto him,
~ What is written in the law?
~ how readest thou?

It is not enough to see "what" is written, but we should care for "how" we read the written statements. But notice also that the question rests upon the reader - "how readest thou?" That does not mean we are at liberty to make "private interpretations" of our own (as Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20); but it also does not mean we should always adhere to calcified traditions handed down through the ages by others who have made up their own biases as the final doctrine - in this case, the doctrine of a "YEC" ([b]y[/b]oung [b]e[/b]arth [b]c[/b]reationism).

If you read Mark 10:6-9 you will see the context in which Jesus was talking.  He was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively.

Hehe. . what do you think you're doing just now? Are you not the same person who said that 'God did not leave it open for any private interpretation' . . and yet you're doing the same by mentioning "context"?

In any case, while I might grant you that simplistic assumption, the bigger question you might need to address is this: what is meant by 'the beginning of the creation'? We often tend to think that it all happened within six days, so that the age of the earth can be neatly boxed into a convenient doctrinal position of YEC's 6,000 years old.

Put this in its proper context and you will find that neither Mark 10:6-9 nor Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 define what is actually "the beginning of the creation". Nada. Zilch. We do not know exactly how long ago was 'the beginning of creation'; nor can we say that Mark 10:6 defines that very instance. All we can say is that the intended meaning of Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 ('from the beginning of the creation') applies to a time epoch based on a relationship - the relationship between a man and his wife.

You certainly are entitled to disagree; but you would have a hard time squeezing pre-Adamic existence into Mark 10:6. Good enough that you quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as cross references, which are all the more pointing to a time long after the actual beginning of creation.

I noted much earlier in post #62 that the phrase "in the beginning" has reference to various applications and meanings, and they do not all refer to the very same instance in time! If they did, that would mean that "in the beginning" in John 1:1 is also 6,000 years old! I gave at least seven points there to consider the meaning of that phrase - all to the point that the age of Adam and Eve (however that may be interpreted) cannot be used for a doctrinal position of 'young earth creationism', YEC. The earth is much older than Adam and Eve - and that is fact! Therefore, one cannot use the age of man to draw unnecessary summations for the age of the earth. In simple outline, one might say:

(a) YEC:
'age of man' = 'age of earth'

(b) the Bible:
'age of man' ≠ 'age of earth'


What people in YEC are doing is to make the age of man equal to the age of the earth, thereby making both man and earth stand at 6,000 years old. However, one does not have to hold the calcified interpretation of the YEC in order to see that 'the age of man' ≠ (is not equal to) the 'age of the earth'. This may sound silly, but the 'Y[b]E[/b]C' as the name implies argues for a 'young EARTH creationism' by basing the weight of their presumption upon the age of Adam and Eve! This is all wrong-footed and presumptive, for Adam and Eve only arrived on the creation scene eons after Genesis 1:1 ('in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'). Man was not created in the cosmological "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, but only arrived at another "beginning" that was eons away from the "beginning" of the first verse!

By quoting from both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, Jesus shows that these chapters are not contradictory, as some may claim.  Chapter 2 merely gives the details of chapter 1 just as Genesis 1:2 gives the description of Genesis 1:1.  A sports comentator is not in error when (after a game) he gives in-depth analysis and fails to repeat every detail in chronological order.  He is merely reviewing the completed game by mentioning the highlights.

As above, Genesis 1:1 ('in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth') is not to be confused as the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve! One cannot use Genesis 1:27 to bracket Genesis 1:1.

This is a verse commonly quoted by the JW's when they claim that Jesus was "made" of the seed of David (that Jesus was a god "created by Jehovah" to die for our sins), they point to Proverbs 8:22-35 for their justification.  However, the Bible is speaking here of the personification of "wisdom" (verse 12).  Jesus had no beginning and He was not created but was begotten as the only begotten Son of God when He was incarnated 2,000 years ago.

I don't think my reference of Proverbs 8 was to argue the timeless existence of Christ. Please re-read my point #5 in post #62 and you'd see precisely what I stated:

[list](5) Now, the point in (4) above might startle many of us Christians - but that is only if we have been thinking that the phrase "in the beginning" always refers to the creation that occurred within the time frame as interpreted to support YEC. That is not true - because if that were true, it would mean that even John 1:1 translates into an idea that the Divine Word was 6,000 years old! Afterall, that verse also mentions 'in the beginning' . . "in the beginning was the Word". Is that clause there ("in the beginning" also pointing to a YEC? Clearly not - rather, in harmony with Prov. 8:23, it was a "beginning" that was much, much earlier than our traditional YEC-6,000 years old![/list]

Quoting again Proverbs 8:23 - "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was". There was a time known also as "the beginning" even before the earth existed! I did not use Proverbs 8:23 to argue anything about Christ's existence in eternity. Rather, I was concentrating on the doctrinal position of 'young earth creationism' - Y[b]E[/b]C.

If you read it in context and without any predetermined bias you will realise that Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively as other animate living organisms do not marry.

There was no predetermined biases up my sleeves. And I have tried to explain that Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 are late arrivals on the scene and cannot be used to bracket Genesis 1:1 for the "beginning" of the creation of the heavens and the earth!

Let's make it simple: you cannot use Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 for "the beginning" of the creation of the heavens and the earth. That is where the proposers of the YEC have woefully failed. Read verse 1 in Gen.1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; and reading it without the predetermined biases of the YEC, we cannot use verse 27 ('God created man') to determine the age of the EARTH in verse 1.

This is where you need to separate between these two properties:

* earth

* man

They are not the same, as we all know. That being the case, we cannot use the age of man to assert the same thing for the age of the earth. God did not do so, nor did His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Infact, Job 38:4 asks a pivotal question: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" This should help us understand that the age of man and the age of the earth are entirely two different things altogether!

Further, several verses in the NT also point to the OT about the creation of the earth. An example is Hebrews 1:10 which quotes Psalm 102:25 -

[list]Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands[/list].

This is no doubt talking about "the beginning" of creation separately from when man arrived on earth. In all this, you cannot use Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to bracket Genesis 1:1 - there are so many other verses that speak of events that we do not read in Genesis 1.

So, I'm sorry to skip the eisegesis of the JW stuff you were talking about; as I'm not a JW, nor did I try to argue their position in any of my posts.

I believe that I have been able to point out that the Bible says what it means and means what it says without any foreign interpretation needed.

I doubt it. From what I see in yours, it seems as though you had used the age of Adam to wrongly infer the age of the earth - which is not what the Bible says or means.

With time I may be able to provide reasons these are so and why your standpoint is a dangerous stand to take.

I do hope it is not dangerous; but even so, I might be scared to note that your interpretation is far too strained on the phrase "in the beginning" to use Adam to determine the age of the earth. That kind of thinking is what is most dangerous - because it would also mean that "the beginning" is 6,000 years old for John 1:1.

I didn't want to reply to, or comment on, your second post; but I'd spend some time just making reminders that we've been through this part of the scripts and there's no need belabouring the point.

modupe01:

That is what it appears to me, the fact that you are looking for excuses from outside influences to stretch the days and nights into billions of years.

Lol, but have I appealed to outside influences to strengthen what I discussed? What influences, really? Sometimes, when people make such statements, I shake my head in amazement. . because it tends to make me feel that these folks suppose that absolutely NOTHING can be known outside the Bible! I dare say that even the Bible points us many times to events and instances where knowledge and understanding came from other sources than the sacred pages of any canon. Oh dear me. . just ask and I shall be too glad to open a thread and walk you through that subject.

Relax, I have not used outside influence to share my points; and I don't need to make appeal to such. From within the pages of the Bible itself, it's easy to show how the position of the YEC is misguided, presumptive and deeply flawed.

When I read the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty, it tells me all that I need to know about how long it took Him to create the universe and earth.

That's just what I thought - many of us read the Scriptures and assume there's no other source to understand the works of God in creation. I apologise, but that is not what I find in Scripture itself. Even in other matters, the saints (or men of God) studied other books to get some understanding about what God had declared. Two examples:

[list][li]In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. ~ (Daniel 9:2) [/li][/list]

[list][li]The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. ~ (2 Tim. 4:13)[/li][/list]

Outstanding men of God, and yet they loved "books" and gave themselves to seeking to understanding issues without a religious spirit we often take today of seeing 'only the 66 books of the Bible' and nothing more.

And yes, they used the knowledge gained from their study to minister to others. Paul, for example, used his knowledge of the poetry of the Athenians in his preaching to them. For how else could he have known that certain of the Athenian poets have also said: "For we are also his offspring"? (Acts 17:28). What the Athenian poets said as quoted by Paul was not written by the finger of God as was the case with Moses' Law in Exodus - and yet, Paul did not rubbish the Athenians by claiming: "Oh, you superstitious lot. . forget your poets, I know all that I need to know about being the offspring of God!"

Hehe, just imagine what the Athenians would have done!! This one is familiar: "Get lost! We Athenians cannot be bothered by self-satisfied Jews from Tarsus!"

Okay, jokes aside. I only wanted to lay this idea to rest that we often mistake as superior to understanding issues broadly, even if it means we read "books" such as in the example with Daniel and Paul.

Now, back to our discussion on YEC.

When I read the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty, it tells me all that I need to know about how long it took Him to create the universe and earth. He said in Exodus 20:11 and I quote again; "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"  This verse mentions the creation of the universe and all that is within it including the sun and seas.

Okay, that's cool and good for you then. I don't need to say anything differently from what I already said in post #24 about the difference between "create" and "made". God did not create the universe in 6 days - He didn't say so, nor did Moses. We are not told HOW LONG it took Him to create the universe, and Exodus 20:11 does not tell us how long either. For all intents and purposes, we have been through this point where I showed that there are events in the creation of the heavens and the earth in other verses which we do not read about in Genesis 1. There is a deafening silence between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1; and it was only afterwards that we begin to read of the 6 days.

Peter, here tells us that the scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth and that they will also be ignorant of Noah's Flood.  Peter had no doubt of the Genesis account of Noah's Flood and he went on to warn us of the impending judgment.  He said nothing of the premordial scum that evolutionists assume of today.  You can now see that the gap theory does away with the evidence for the historical event of the global Flood.

Lol, you seem to be so much in a haste to draw unfounded conclusions. For one, please read carefully what I say, and not what I do not say. As such, let me hint you as I've done to others: viaro is not a fan of Darwinian evolution. Even then, my mention of "the primordial condition of the earth" does not suggest Darwinism.

What did I mean by 'primordial'?

[list]"formed when the Earth or universe began"
[MacMillan Dictionary Online][/list]

[list]"existing at or from the beginning of the world"
[Oxford English Dictionary][/list]

[list]"1 a : first created or developed : primeval
1 b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe)"
Merriam Webster Online[/list]

These are the examples of the simple sense in which I used 'primordial', and they do not suggest a leaning towards darwinism, no matter how some Christians tend to react because they flinch anytime they read particular words or terms. In that case, I clearly made mention that what Peter was giving us in the statement 'the earth standing out of the water and in the water' was a primordial description of the earth (it has nothing to do with darwinism).

God left us in no doubt as to when, how, what and how long it took Him to create.  He said in Psalm 33:6,9 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.  For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast"

God does not tell us anything about "when and how long it took Him to create" in your quote of Psalm 33:6,9. He made no mention of when (not 6 days dating back 6,000 years ago), nor for how long (the universe is evidently older than 6,000 years). Please note carefully that the "universe" is much bigger than the earth. . because it seems to me that many times this is taken for granted in your posts.

I believe and affirm that Genesis chapter 1 is clear enough on what and when God created.

I believe so as well; but I do not believe that the proponents of YEC are letting God speak clearly as He does in Genesis.

If you read without the need to include the billion of years into Gen.1:2 you will see what am talking about.

I do not "need" to include anything; and YEC proponents should have no "need" to reduce the universe to 6,000 years old either! Evidently, and more importantly, YEC should help themselves to distinguish between "man" and the "earth" - you cannot use the age of man to define the age of the earth!

Many sincere Christians have invented reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid intellectual conflicts with popular scientific ideas.

That's precisely what YEC has been doing for eons. There's nothing one can present to them that they would not find some clandestine way of squeezing it into their 6,000 years model.

These theories are designed to fit in with scientific concepts that arose in the 1800s and are still popular today.  I hope to come back with more reasons why this position cannot be sustainable in this day and age, even the evolutionists know that it doesn't add up.

My discourse is not on 'evolutionists' or 'evolutionism' - and if you want to see an example of why many Christians use "creationism" to argue breezily against evolutionism, please see OLAADEGBU's thread, Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists. In that thread, I excitedly waited for OLAADEGBU to show me "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" - need I say he did not show me 'how'. not in the least way possible.

It is not as if I argued for evolution in that thread. In fact, let me remind you: I'm not a fan of Darwinism. However, my concern there was to help Christians sort out their confusion in arguing aimlessly between science and teleology. I urge you to see my posts in that thread as you consider coming back with the "reasons" you have in mind as regarding the scientific concepts of the 1800s.

Thanks for your replies and observations. I may be away for quite some time; but I shall consider your further replies whenever I'm back on NL.

viaro:

Now, back to our discussion on YEC.

Okay, that's cool and good for you then. I don't need to say anything differently from what I already said in post #24 about the difference between "create" and "made". God did not create the universe in 6 days - He didn't say so, nor did Moses. We are not told HOW LONG it took Him to create the universe, and Exodus 20:11 does not tell us how long either. For all intents and purposes, we have been through this point where I showed that there are events in the creation of the heavens and the earth in other verses which we do not read about in Genesis 1. There is a deafening silence between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1; and it was only afterwards that we begin to read of the 6 days.

I believe that I have refuted your assertions if you look into my response, I feel that I explained how bara and asah (create and make respectively) could be used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).

viaro:

Lol, you seem to be so much in a haste to draw unfounded conclusions. For one, please read carefully what I say, and not what I do not say. As such, let me hint you as I've done to others: viaro is not a fan of Darwinian evolution. Even then, my mention of "the primordial condition of the earth" does not suggest Darwinism.

What did I mean by 'primordial'?

[list]"formed when the Earth or universe began"
[MacMillan Dictionary Online][/list]

[list]"existing at or from the beginning of the world"
[Oxford English Dictionary][/list]

[list]"1 a : first created or developed : primeval
1 b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe)"
Merriam Webster Online[/list]

These are the examples of the simple sense in which I used 'primordial', and they do not suggest a leaning towards darwinism, no matter how some Christians tend to react because they flinch anytime they read particular words or terms. In that case, I clearly made mention that what Peter was giving us in the statement 'the earth standing out of the water and in the water' was a primordial description of the earth (it has nothing to do with darwinism).

Explanation understood. I am sorry if I misunderstood you but could you be much clearer in explaining your axiom? Do you believe in the theory of evolution? and do you also believe that the Flood of Noah was literal and global?

viaro:

God does not tell us anything about "when and how long it took Him to create" in your quote of Psalm 33:6,9. He made no mention of when (not 6 days dating back 6,000 years ago), nor for how long (the universe is evidently older than 6,000 years). Please note carefully that the "universe" is much bigger than the earth. . because it seems to me that many times this is taken for granted in your posts.

No one is saying that the universe is the same thing as the earth I don't know where you got this from your assumption is ridiculous! God was clear as to when He created, how He created and how long it took for Him to create the universe and everything within it, including the earth. And note that I did not say that the earth is the same size or bigger than the universe.

The Jews should know better since the fourth commandment comes from the basis of the six day Creation Week. Their sabbath day was considered as an ordinary day and the 6 days of work were considered as ordinary days. The first century Jewish historian Josephus indicated that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam's creation were about 5,000 years before Christ. (See The Works of Josephus, page 850, 1987).

viaro:

I do not "need" to include anything; and YEC proponents should have no "need" to reduce the universe to 6,000 years old either! Evidently, and more importantly, YEC should help themselves to distinguish between "man" and the "earth" - you cannot use the age of man to define the age of the earth!

That's precisely what YEC has been doing for eons. There's nothing one can present to them that they would not find some clandestine way of squeezing it into their 6,000 years model.

The fact that I believe that God created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago as the Bible says, reveals the power and wisdom of God in a profound way, that the Almighty God did not need billion of years before He could create in fact, the billions of years scenario diminish God by suggesting that mere chance could create things or that God needed huge amounts of time to create things, this would be limiting God's power by reducing it naturalistic explanations.

In Mark 10:6 that I referred to earlier, Jesus says: "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female"  How you concluded that Jesus was talking about any other thing apart from Adam and Eve surprises me.  From the passage, Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning," and not from billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.  Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 when He indicated that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation.  The parallel phrases of "from the foundation of the world" and "from the blood of Abel" in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

As I have posted earlier on this thread of the fact that Moses will accuse a lot of so called Christians who do not believe his writings or take as allegories when it is not to be.  Jesus said in John 5:45, "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you -- Moses, in whom you trust.  For if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"  Here, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote.  And one of the passages in the writings of Moses is Exodus 20:11 which states that "For is six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" this was even inscribed by the finger of the Almighty God!  This passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of 7 literal days based on the Creation Week of 6 literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

viaro:

My discourse is not on 'evolutionists' or 'evolutionism' - and if you want to see an example of why many Christians use "creationism" to argue breezily against evolutionism, please see OLAADEGBU's thread, Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists. In that thread, I excitedly waited for OLAADEGBU to show me "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" - need I say he did not show me 'how'. not in the least way possible.

In that site you suggested a link was suggested to you there that explains why you should not tread the dangerous path you are now threading;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions/

I doubt whether you read it.

viaro:

It is not as if I argued for evolution in that thread. In fact, let me remind you: I'm not a fan of Darwinism. However, my concern there was to help Christians sort out their confusion in arguing aimlessly between science and teleology. I urge you to see my posts in that thread as you consider coming back with the "reasons" you have in mind as regarding the scientific concepts of the 1800s.

Thanks for your replies and observations. I may be away for quite some time; but I shall consider your further replies whenever I'm back on NL.

I will suggest that you read up on the links olaadegbu posted in the thread up there and I hope that will solve your concerns and close the door of compromise.  It is the authority Word of God versus sinful man's opinions that is at stake.  The Word of God is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.

viaro:

It is not as if I argued for evolution in that thread. In fact, let me remind you: I'm not a fan of Darwinism. However, my concern there was to help Christians sort out their confusion in arguing aimlessly between science and teleology. I urge you to see my posts in that thread as you consider coming back with the "reasons" you have in mind as regarding the scientific concepts of the 1800s.

Let us use the Bible to consider the “Days” of Genesis 1. What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1? A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the English word “day” can have perhaps 14 different meanings.

In Genesis 1, the first occurrence of “day” means “time” in a general sense. The second “day,” where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period. The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. To understand the Bible this acronym would be useful: COMB; C: Context, O: Other related scriptures, M: Meaning of words, B: Background.

To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

[list]
[li]A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.” Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1. Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.[/li]
[/list]

The 19th century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said:

"If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless."

If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for “day” found in Genesis 1, which is qualified by a number, the phrase “evening and morning” and for Day 1 the words “light and darkness”  obviously means an ordinary day (about 24 hours).

John Calvin stated:

“Albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. , God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”

Luther and Calvin were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation that called the church back to Scripture; Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).  Both of these men were adamant that Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of creation, only thousands of years ago.

And finally, The Almighty God when He commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel in Exodus 31:12:

Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15–17).

Then God gave Moses two tablets of stone upon which were written the commandments of God, written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18).

Because God is infinite in power and wisdom, there’s no doubt He could have created the universe and its contents in no time at all, or six seconds, or six minutes, or six hours, after all, "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37).

However, the question to ask is, “Why did God take so long? Why as long as six days?” The answer is also given in Exodus 20:11, and that answer is the basis of the Fourth Commandment:

"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."

The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture.  In this Old Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one, thus giving us a reason why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything.  He set the example for man.  Our week is patterned after this principle.  Now if He created everything in six thousand (or six million) years, followed by a rest of one thousand or one million years, then we would have a very interesting week indeed.

These are some of the reasons why Christians should build their thinking on the Bible instead on the assumptions of fallible sinners's ideologies.

The New Creation
November 24, 2009

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

To appreciate this wonderful verse properly, it is helpful to remember two things. In the New Testament both "creature" and "creation" represent the same Greek word and so can be used interchangeably. Secondly, in both Testaments only "God" or "the Lord" can be the subject of the verb "create" or "created," because God alone is the Creator. Men can "make" things, or "form" things, but only God can create!

As far as the physical creation is concerned, the work of creation was finished long ago (Genesis 2:1-3; Hebrews 4:3, 10) except for the very special case of miracles (e.g., the miracle of the multiplied loaves and fishes).

Nevertheless, He is still the Creator, and the miracle of regeneration is a spiritual creation which does occur every time an individual truly receives Christ as Saviour and Lord and is thereby "born again." Only God can create! No psychologist, or guru, or anyone else can make a "new man" of an "old man." Only God is Creator, and an unregenerate person must be "born of the Spirit"-- that is, God the Holy Spirit--to be truly "born again" (John 3:3-.

But then he does become a new creation, and his life is changed! We "put off . . . the old man," and "put on the new man, which after God is created |note--'created'!| in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:22, 24). We "have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Colossians 3:9-10). This is Christ's work, for "Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Galatians 2:20). HMM

How old is the earth?

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzZvU_Iy3d4&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1[/flash]

Real scientists talk about the age of the earth

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESt7xln9MPY&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Creation in the 21st Century -- Creationist scientists prove the age of the earth (1 of 3)

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdr7p0ri5lc&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Hi modupe01,

I'd thought there was gist in your replies that would take me more time to respond to; but I can do this in a short time before attending to other things.

modupe01:

I believe that I have refuted your assertions if you look into my response, I feel that I explained how bara and asah (create and make respectively) could be used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).

It is interesting that you're missing something essential here. In none of those texts does it appear that those words (bara and asha) are used interchangeably to refer to the very same thing. I'm glad that you quoted Genesis 1:26-27, and perhaps it is one of the best texts I like to use for people who argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based upon the age of Adam. I'm sorry, but you will notice that such an idea is self-refuting; because the first verse there (verse 26) speaks of God saying that He would MAKE man before saying in the next verse 27 that He CREATED Adam in His own image!

Have you ever stopped to think of this? Why would God mention "make" [עשׂה - ‛aśah] before "create" [בּרא - bara']? It is not a coincidence, no; and I believe it is deliberate! Since you have hinted somewhere that 'the Jews should know better', then here is my answer: the Jews actually know better - and guess what? The same Jews do not believe that Adam is the very first human being to be created. Somewhere in this thread (if I remember), I noted that the Jews hold that there are 974 generations before the creation of Adam and Eve. The specie of homos sapiens did not start with Adam - which was why God spoke first of "make"  before going on to speak about "create".

Just to show you this by illustration: we turn to Genesis 2:4 - 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. Please note the following:

       (a)  the first part states the creation of the heavens and the earth -
             which tessellates with Genesis 1:1

       (b)  the second part states that God made the earth and the heavens -
             which brings in the order of the 6 days from Genesis 1:2

       (c)  in the first part, the "heavens" were mentioned first before earth;
             in the second part, the "earth" was mentioned first before the heavens

These are not confused as to be mistaken for interchangeable usage - no: they are rather deliberate, because the emphasis in such verses are striking at something we often take for granted. God created the heavens and the earth - how long, when, etc? We don't know, because the Bible does not tell us about such things. We gather from other books of the Bible that there was an age that preceded the existence of the earth, though we are not told for how long that age lasted before the earth was created.

But should we examine the other references: Exodus 34:10 interestingly enough does not make use of those key words interchangeably.  The key words there are:

            * כּרת  - karath

            * עשׂה - ‛aśah

            * בּרא - bara'

In the verse, they appear like this in our English translation:

          'And he said, Behold, I make [karath] a covenant:
          before all thy people I will do [‛aśah] marvels,
          such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth, nor in any nation:
          and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD:
          for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee'

Was God using these words interchangeably? I doubt it: for He did not say He would "create" a covenant as if He was about to bring a "covenant" into existence in the sense of His creating the heavens and the earth. A legal agreement is simply a contract binding upon agreed parties - and yes, even MEN can make (karath) covenants as well, just as the one Abraham and Abimelech made (karath) in Genesis 21:32.

What about "marvels" in that verse - that God said He would "do [‛aśah] marvels such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth"? Certainly, God did not mean again that He was going to "create" marvels as if He was going to bring 'marvels' into creation such as was the case of the heavens and the earth. In almost every other place where we read of the same connotations, the word 'marvels' has the same idea as the word translated as 'wonders' (פּלא - pele). In Exodus 15:11, we read that God is in the business of "doing (עשׂה - ‛aśah) wonders", not "creating" them as if they were part of the 6 days creation.

The same point is made in Isaiah 41:20 and 43:7 - God was not making use of those words interchangeably within the same verses; for that would be odd indeed especially here the statements are connected by a conjunction ("and".

Explanation understood.  I am sorry if I misunderstood you but could you be much clearer in explaining your axiom?  Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

I said earlier: I am not a fan of Darwinism.

and do you also believe that the Flood of Noah was literal and global?

'Literal', yes; but 'global', no.

No one is saying that the universe is the same thing as the earth I don't know where you got this from your assumption is ridiculous!  God was clear as to when He created, how He created and how long it took for Him to create the universe and everything within it, including the earth.  And note that I did not say that the earth is the same size or bigger than the universe.

Please understand. I did not assert that you made the earth the same size as the universe; rather, I pointed out that the argument of the position of 'Y[/b]oung [b]EARTH C[/b]reationism' (YEC) is often based on nothing more than mere calculations of the supposed age of Adam, dating back from the present. As long as the YEC wants to push the idea that Adam was created in day number 6 [b]therefore the heavens and earth must be 6,000 years old, that idea would continue to be self-defeating! Adam is a late comer to the scene; the earth and the universe are a creation that date back to eons which we are not exactly told how long or how old. The "heavens" is much more than the sky we look over our heads in an open field - that term includes the deepest of galaxies, most of which we know nothing about. How come the YEC has been trying ever so hard and yet so failingly to argue for the earth as young as 6,000 years old and forget the "heavens" (which includes the galaxies)? Are the galaxies 6,000 years old as well?

The Jews should know better since the fourth commandment  comes from the basis of the six day Creation Week.  Their sabbath day was considered as an ordinary day and the 6 days of work were considered as ordinary days.  The first century Jewish historian Josephus indicated that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam's creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.  (See The Works of Josephus, page 850, 1987).
I believe so as well; but I do not believe that the proponents of YEC are letting God speak clearly as He does in Genesis.

Hehe, I doubt you have asked the Jews what they beleive about the 974 generations before Adam - they are not as simplistic as you are arguing for only a minute part of creation. Please consult them again and let's know if they argue for the same thing that the YEC argue.

Your other posts I shall find time to come back and reply. Cheers.