Young Earth Creationism and the Da Vinci code

Deut 5:12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; ...
15 You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

Moses had no problem using figurative description of God's actions to illustrate the Sabbath command.

That would be Psalm 104:6-9. This is a description of the creation. The Psalm follows the pattern of the creation days in Genesis, though it doesn't seem to pick up on them being 24 hour days, in fact it seems to read them as a framework describing different aspect of creation rather than a timetable.

What is really interesting is that the verses you quote match up with Gen 1:2-9 when the deep covered the earth and God created land. The thing is, this contradicts the idea of a global flood later on in Genesis, because it was during the creation God said the waters would never cover the earth again. Prov 8 and Job 38 say the same thing, that God set limits on the waters during the creation.

Cheers Assyrian

Indeed, it is a noteworthy fact that Psalm 104, Prov 8 and Job 38 are all deliberate parallels to the Genesis 1 story, and these 3 passages are all definitely poetic. Further evidence against the literal historicity of Genesis 1.

rmwilliamsll,

in Gen 1:5 the word yom is used in 2 different ways in the same sentence, you have to determine which one from the context.

It is no different then using the word day in the English concept: In my father's day it took 5 days to reach Brisbane from Perth by only travelling in the day.

My question to you is: Do you have any problem in defining what each term "day" means? It is similar with Genesis 1:5. I have never seen an evolutionist argue such a non-sensical case. We do not say that day only has the one meaning throughout all Genesis, it must be interpreted in context (which is something that you [evolutionists] evidently do not do). Yet, strangely enough you can interpret the word day in my example above. This shows that you can or have the ability to correctly interpret in context, but that you an underlying assumption that denies such a view. The passage does not support an old earth view millions of years is more than "evening passed, morning came, the nth day."

I'll answer your other questions later on in the days that follow as my schedule is rather hetic for the next few days with essays and presentations due.

gluadys,

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It requires a prior assumption that the narrative is historical. It may also require a prior assumption that TE requires a Day-Age perspective. This is not the case.

I find that ironic. The evolutionist uses the argument that creationists have been using for ages (namely, the data must be interpreted by underlying beliefs or presuppositions) to discredit my position, while at the same time stating that this does not apply to the theistic evolution. I hope that you can see the foolishness in your statement. You can't have it both ways. Either it is true for all readings of Genesis or it is not true for either, in which case you must provide evidence to prove your opinion.

As a TE, I agree entirely with what you have said about the use of "yom" in the Hebrew narrative. But I do not agree that this requires the narrative to be historical. The author does intend to convey the sense of 6 (actually 7) 24 hour days. But the days can still be a literary device for presenting creation in an ordered fashion and as providing a basis in creation for the Sabbath. They need not be days in history.

If the basis for the Sabbath is false, then what authority is there for the Sabbath? God would then be lying because he says specifically in Exodus 20:11 that since I worked for six days, then so to shall you. In other words, the very fact that God worked for six literal days and rested on the seventh is the whole justification for Him commanding mankind to do the same! If God worked for millions of years and rested for a few million years, then He is lying by saying that He worked for six.

What is the basis for this assertion? It makes no sense to me. If this were true, we could not understand the point of Jesus' parables.

What I believe the author was saying, is when can you trust the Bible if you believe that parts of the Bible is just symbolic stories? How do you when a story is a symbol or metaphorical and when the author is actually trying to convey truth? How do you know what the Bible means if the basic in-context interpretation of Scripture may not be literal and historical? It's just like approaching a stop sign and wondering what it means!

It is actually very logical. The only reason why you do not understand is because your religious faith in evolution has literally blinded you, just as the Jews are blinded in realising Jesus is the Messiah. Your view of the Bible and what you think it means has exactly the same effect on your understanding of Scripture (with regard to Genesis and its consequences and Scriptural authority) as it does with the Jews (who believed so much that the Messiah would destroy the Romans and free Israel, rather than becoming the Lamb of God to take away our sins).

Actually, those points brought up by CMI are very reliable and not PRATTS as you falsely assert. If they are, then please give an example of where they are wrong.

Let's see what is going on here with your disagreement about the creationist arguments.

We both have the same evidence. Right? That is, we both have the same rocks, the same stars, the same fossils, and so on. We also both use the same science. Would you not concur? That is, we both use physics, geology, biology, chemistry, and the principles there in. So, the logical question must be asked: Why do creationists and evolutionists reach totally different conclusions? If we both use the same science and both have the same physical evidence and observations, why do we reach different conclusions? Obviously, since both of the above are the same, there must be a third varrible in this equation. Any ideas on what that is?

That third varrible is the scientist's underlying presuppositional beliefs, that is, what the scientist initially believes to be true. If one looks at the evidence from a Bible-believing position, then they will interpret the physical data and the results through a creationary world view and so will reach a creationary conclusion. The same is true for the evolutionist who has already rejected the Bible-believing position. They will look at the evidence from an unbelieving point of view and interpret it through that world view and ultimately come to an evolutionary conclusion.

At least you would know why non-YECsists consider them shaky if not downright false, and why they are unconvincing to those not already religiously committed to a young-earth POV.

Actually, you really have no idea on the nature of the evidence and of science, do you? Firstly, you assert that the evidence "proves" a particular position (which is literally impossible, because the evidence itself has no voice and cannot imply anything - even Stephen Jay Gould recognizes this).

Secondly, you also assume that evolutionists do not have any presupposition or underlying beliefs, which is once again false as shown above.

Thirdly, they are only unconvincing to you [evolutionists] because your underlying belief system tells you that the earth is not young and that anything which challenges your view is "lies." This is not an example of an open-minded person.

Fourthly, you give me a link to an evolutionary website (with a clear subjective bias) who is known to distort the facts to favour their religious belief in evolution, for example, they falsely assert that 3rd stage SNRs (Super Nova Remnants) exist in this galaxy, while observational evidence declares that not one has been observed. Such is their devotion to evolution that even facts that clearly contradict the belief must be made to fit their underlying belief in evolution - we call this "assimilation" - or trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust any information from Talk Origins, not because I think their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, but because of how they lied in that example - by saying that there were observed third stage SNRs when observation informs us that there is none. Besides that, hardly any of their staff have any Ph.Ds in the fields to which they report about. At least, they didn't the last time I was there. I might as well get information from Wikipedia then...

Anyway, gtg.

The "figurative" description is a poetic way of recounting a litteral event; the crossing of the Red Sea.


there's nothing to back up what you've said about this.

God said that after six day creation, AFTER the flood; God never said He'd never flood the earth before then.

If the basis for the Sabbath is false, then what authority is there for the Sabbath? God would then be lying because he says specifically in Exodus 20:11 that since I worked for six days, then so to shall you. In other words, the very fact that God worked for six literal days and rested on the seventh is the whole justification for Him commanding mankind to do the same! If God worked for millions of years and rested for a few million years, then He is lying by saying that He worked for six.

The authority for the Sabbath is the declaration of God as to the meaning of the Creation Week. Your modern notions of historicism so color your interpretation that you can not see meaning or truthfulness if the event did not happen in our time precisely and exactly in a scientific and evidential manner. God declared the Sabbath, He declared it as a pattern. It is a pattern in time exactly analogous to how the universe reflects the heavens, as the temple reflects the heavenly temple, as the earth is God's footstool, as man is the very image of God. They are all metaphors, human accommodations for divine meaning and significance. They are true because God declared them to be true, they are not true because there is a divine temple in heaven, a throne for God to sit on, a footstool shaped like the planet earth. They are anthropomorphisms that exists because we are unable to visualize or see the heavens or its contents directly. We see them by analogy to the things of this earth.

YECists are trying to give physical substance to spiritual issues like the Sabbath and Creation Week. God is telling us the meaning and significance of the events, He is giving us a great analogy. The analogy is anchoring in the treaties of kings in the ancient middle east. It reaches a climax in the experience of the Israelities at Mt Sinai, the echoes of that event, the Treaty of the Great King are the covenants of God with a string of representives from Adam to Jesus, culminating in the only one who could keep the bargain-Jesus.

We demythologize many things in our culture, the one place that seems resistant to this process is politics. As my father's generation, the greatest generation dies off, many of these myths are repeated for the benefit of those generations that followed that did not experience those events.

From the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi in Iwo Jima, to "nuts" at the Battle of the Bulge, the history of events is completely mixed up with the mythological meaning of those events. It is the meaning that is most important, the actual historical basis of the events is secondary and often conflicts with the mythological importance that people wish to attach to those events.

Mt. Suribachi was staged, it was a PR event, designed to increase morale and inspire the homefront. Did they fight to the top of the hill? did it represent the completion of the battle, that is the implication, the highest point was in American hands. No, those are historically inaccurate, but mythologically important.

Our culture is so sure that mythos is inferior to logos as a way of communicating meaning and significance that we degradate everything that is mythos and word all of our modern myths in terms of logos. For only in logos can a modern historicism and scientism culture believe that it has found truthfulness.

YECists are a modern movement, doing the same thing with the first chapter of Genesis, rewriting the mythological meaning of the chapter in terms of history and science. This whole issue of no death before the fall is exactly this, the rewriting of Genesis in terms of modern myths, but always anchoring it in the current powers of history and science. IN order to make it believable, to make it persuasive to modern minds.

OUr movies do it, our fiction does it with the genre of historical fiction, our politics does it.
but when you impose this on Genesis you are losing the crucial elements of meaning that God assigns and teaches us concerning the text. This is the great error of YECism, by rewriting the meaning of Gen 1 in historical an d scientific terms they are contrary to the significance spelled out in the Scriptures itself.

__________________
i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.

thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.

Do you have any problem in defining what each term "day" means?

absolutely, i started a thread here that has never been answered, the division of light from darkness can be in time or in space. Which one is it? is the word "yom" in Gen 1:5, meaning daylight, mean that the ancient Israelites thought that the whole universe was light? or was light/dark rotates so 1/2 of the universe was dark and 1/2 daylight?
I don't know, but i know it is a modern minds questions, not one shaped by ANE ideas. We desire to know how much, how fast, mechanisms etc. This shapes our cultures, and our minds, we look at mechanism before we look at meaning. How something works interests us as a culture far more than who uses it, for what purposes, towards what goals. The how is subjected to the why. This is technological society, technological man, it is the kind of questions our culture has been asking for nearly 400 years, successfully. They are however not the only, nor probably the most important questions to ask.

__________________
i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.

thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.

The whole problem with debates like this is that everybody comes in with a worldview package (mapping history to significance) which they aren't even aware of, then assume that they disagree on facts because they disagree on the implications of facts. The cure is to take things slowly, catch important diagnostic terms, and uncover what worldviews are being used to reach the interpretations being reached. Here's a classic:

We'll start with this, Everyday, and work slowly through your worldview to help you understand it. (Most of the time YECs aren't even aware of what they believe: when they encounter it for the first time it looks so much like the enemy!)

How do you know that an author isn't trying to convey truth when s/he uses symbol or metaphor? Are all symbols and metaphors lies? Are Jesus' symbols and metaphors lies?

__________________

Another place is science - and before some smart-aleck says "Yeah, Darwinism is a myth" I'm not referring to those, I'm referring to the deeper scientific myth of sudden genius. We have all sorts of stories about how geniuses found the theories named after them, like Archimedes' "Eureka!" or Newton and his apple ("thank God Newton wasn't a Malaysian or it would've been a coconut on his head ... "), Galileo dropping weights from the Leaning Tower, Fermi dropping paper shreds to measure the blast of the first atomic bomb. Even with Darwin, the idea that his Galapagos trip immediately led to evolution isn't very true: it took a long time and some other pushes for him to reach it (reference book isn't with me right now, so can't confirm for sure).

I think the mythology of science is a very strong and complex example of how mythos and logos come together. We know about Darwin's Beagle trip and that Galileo never actually dropped those weights; we can be quite sure that Newton never directly credited his apple for the theory of gravity, on the other hand we know that Archimedes' "Eureka!" and Fermi's papers were "for real". And yet the ideas behind them are very muddled. We know that despite the apple being largely apocryphal, Newton really was a superlative genius who singlehandedly invented calculus; while Galileo had disagreements with Aristotle, he never got around to modern mechanics; Archimedes was even farther from any notion of weight as force; and the inter-relationships of the inventors of the atom bomb are really complex. There is no clear "myth - falsehood" or "history - truth" link here; even if Newton never really got bonked by an apple, the episode succinctly captures his genius.

And seriously, how many of us haven't been captivated with the picture of Newton sitting under an apple tree and suddenly have the brilliant idea of gravity knock him on the head?

========================================

The whole DVC furor quite amply demonstrates one interesting feature of the YEC mindset (and fundamentalist in general), their monolithic approach towards the historicity of the Scriptures. Quite frankly the whole controversy over DVC seems to me like a storm in a thimble. If one steps back and thinks, the obvious question is:

What difference does it make if Jesus fathered a bloodline, to the message of His Incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?

Not much, really - unless one has the mindset that if the Gospels don't tell us about Jesus' marriage they haven't really told us anything about Him. In other words, a monolithic view of the Gospels' historicity considers an attack on one part of the Gospels (the absence of mention of Jesus' marriage) an attack on the whole Gospels.

And 90% of the time, this idea of monolithicity is just a manifestation of an underlying Quranic mindset regarding the Bible's revelation and purpose in Christianity.

[I understand that some of the other ideas, especially the censoring of other Gospels in the canonization process, are indeed very offensive to Christianity. But I just don't find it true of the book's main premise.]

__________________

Originally Posted by shinbits

The "figurative" description is a poetic way of recounting a litteral event; the crossing of the Red Sea.

Exactly, just like the six days is a figurative way of recounting a literal event the creation. Like the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' description in Deuteronomy, the Sabbath command in Exodus is wrapped in an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God as a weary labourer resting after six days toil and being refreshed.

Exodus 20:11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

God does not get weary, he is not refreshed after a rest. It is a metaphor. Which means the only time the bible actually says God created the world in six days, it is part of an anthropomorphic metaphor.

Look up 'refreshed'. It is used to describe people recovering from exhaustion, getting their breath back, after fleeing an enemy 2Sam 16:14 or of the most vulnerable workers, children, animals, foreigners, in need of refreshing after six days labour Exodus 23:12.

When God describes his rest, he identifies with the weakest in society, the child of a servant girl, exhausted and desperately in need of a rest and time to be refreshed. But God doesn't really get tired.

there's nothing to back up what you've said about this.

Read through Psalm 104 and compare the topics with Gen 1. Psalm 104 starts with the creation of the world and continues on through water covering the earth, land appearing, God making grass, plants and trees grow, making the sun and moon to mark seasons, the seas teem with fish great and small. Now the Psalmist doesn't take the YEC six literal sequential day view, and has man (literally adam) and animals appearing through the Psalm enjoying the benefits that God creates. The reference to days 1-5 form a clear sequence that matches the order in Gen 1 and seems to be used by the Psalmist as a framework to discuss creation. The Psalmist places the boundaries God set for the waters back in Gen 1:2-9, when the deep covered the earth and God formed the land. This was after the foundations of the earth was laid and before God gave the earth plants, or any mention of men and animals in the Psalm.

Feel free to disagree with the framework interpretation, but the pattern from Genesis 1 is very clear.

God said that after six day creation, AFTER the flood; God never said He'd never flood the earth before then.

Well Psalm 104 places it during the creation as does Job 38 and Prov 8, and the only way that can mesh with the Noah's flood, is if the flood was only local rather than the whole world being covered with water which God promised wouldn't happen.
Assyrian