Creationism

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 08:28 AM budoka said this in Post #65

So you are saying that the scientific method is false (being a creation of Fallen Man). Therefore, why does it only fail in the very specific fields that are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

I did not say it was false, I said it was flawed. Man fell from God's origional purpose and intention. Some are in the process of being redeemed and restored, others are stubborn and rebellious.

It is not just in what conflicts with the Bible. Do you think that terrorism knocked the last space ship out of the sky? If not,then someone screwed up somewhere. The screw up could be in trying to fly a 20 year old peice of junk space ship that would make Hans Solo cringe.

Adam and Eve were created in perfection. They had a tiny heart and a tiny mind that matched the big heart and the big mind of their creator. God would come down in the cool of the day and talk with Adam. There is no record of God talking to the monkeys or even stone age man.

When Adam and Eve fell from the grace of God, into corruption, all of creation fell with them. Sin and death from sin entered into the world. Now evolutionary theory wants to make fallen man look just like the rest of creation, and they deny the need for redemption and restoration.

My whole life is centered on the plan of redemption. To help as many people as I can, to draw closer to God. To see that He wants to do a work in their life to redeem and to restore then to His origional purpose and intention.

God is either going to get sin out of man. Or He will destroy the man. Because mankind and all of creation is going to be restored. There will not only be a Garden in the land of Eden. All of the earth will be like Paradise. There will be no death, there will be no pain, misery or sorrow. People will have everlasting joy and contentment in their work and in what they do to honor and to glorify God.

Sin and sickness are about the same thing. So one way to look at it would be to say that planet earth is sick, and man along with the earth is subject to some sort of sickness. But God has the cure and He is in the process of healing man and healing the earth and all of creation. So once again we will be healthy. But not everyone wants to be healed, so some actually many will die in their sickness, because they refused to take their medicine. They refused the cure that God has for what ails them. But that is no problem for God, He will just take whosoever is willing, and they will populate the earth.

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:06 AM Micaiah said this in Post #79

Again you are getting side-tracked. What you think others did or didn't believe during the above period of history has little bearing on how we should interpret Scripture.

Micaiah, your claim was that "evolutionists deny the plain meaning of Scripture."  What the history shows is that Christians concluded that a literal interpretation of Scripture (what you are mislabeling as "plain meaning") was incorrect. 

Throughout history man has attempted to demonstrate that his philosophies and theories are superior to those of God.

But that isn't what happened here.  There was no attempt to demonstrate anything. The only motivation was to learn how God created. 

 No, we're not talking about mans beliefs re Genesis, we're talking about what God intended.

And it is the contention that God did not intend to have Genesis read literally.

It is plain from Scripture that the book must be read as an historical account of Creation. You have failed to demonstrate why this is not the case.

It is plain that the book must not be read as an historical account.  For one thing, we must not do that because there are two historical accounts and they contradict. 

I submit that I have demonstrated it.  Whether you accept that demonstration or not is another matter.  I notice that you make no specific counterarguments.

Doesn't the Bible say that people won't give up worshipping false gods?  I submit that you have made a false god out of the Bible and worship it instead of God. 

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 08:41 AM lucaspa said this in Post #66

meant that creationism was false. Instead, Christians realized that God had created the universe by the processes discovered by science, including evolution. 

Creationism is not false. Creation had a creator. We have not yet entered into the perfect age and so our understanding of creation has not yet been perfected.

Micaiah · Feb 26, 2003

We're going in circles. I suggest you read and anwer some of the question put to you regarding your beliefs so we can all get some idea of where you are coming from.

As stated above, the internal evidence shows Genesis is a historical record of events 'In the beginning...'. You have failed or refused to accept this method of interpretation. The real reason is a desire to make Scripture accomodate secular beliefs on origins, as is stated in your points above. Other methods of interpretation give you the latitude to distort Scripture to make it say whatever you want. I would have thought your scientific training would force you to take a more honest and objective approach.

Micaiah · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 11:20 PM lucaspa said this in Post #82 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677204#post677204)

Today at 10:06 AM Micaiah said this in Post #79

Again you are getting side-tracked. What you think others did or didn't believe during the above period of history has little bearing on how we should interpret Scripture.

Micaiah, your claim was that "evolutionists deny the plain meaning of Scripture."  What the history shows is that Christians concluded that a literal interpretation of Scripture (what you are mislabeling as "plain meaning") was incorrect. 

Throughout history man has attempted to demonstrate that his philosophies and theories are superior to those of God.

But that isn't what happened here.  There was no attempt to demonstrate anything. The only motivation was to learn how God created. 

 No, we're not talking about mans beliefs re Genesis, we're talking about what God intended.

And it is the contention that God did not intend to have Genesis read literally.

It is plain from Scripture that the book must be read as an historical account of Creation. You have failed to demonstrate why this is not the case.

It is plain that the book must not be read as an historical account.  For one thing, we must not do that because there are two historical accounts and they contradict. 

I submit that I have demonstrated it.  Whether you accept that demonstration or not is another matter.  I notice that you make no specific counterarguments.

Doesn't the Bible say that people won't give up worshipping false gods?  I submit that you have made a false god out of the Bible and worship it instead of God. 

You assert there are contradictions in Genesis. I assume you refer to an apparent contradiction if the accounts are read as they are intended - as historical accounts of Creation. When pressed to give your understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture you refused.

I'm prepared to continue our discussion and tackle this issue of apparent contradictions when you demonstrate you are able to give an accurate rendering of the plain meaning of Scripture. Would you like to continue our verse by verse analysis of the first two chapters.

Micaiah · Feb 26, 2003

I'm off for the night. I strongly recommend Lucaspa that you have the courage to speak in the first person rather than adopting the third person in these discussions. In other words, have the courage to let us know what you believe.

God says the cowardly will not enter the kingdom of God!

Smilin · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 09:53 AM Micaiah said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677167#post677167)
Genuine Christians will have a problem accepting the interpretations of those who fail to follow Christ. I have a sneaking suspicion that you consider yourself a Christian but are too afraid of what people will think to make your beliefs public. I'd suggest the fear of man is the main reason Christian scientists are so willing to distort Scripture to accomodate evolution.

First, why would you think only those who follow Christ are capable of reading and understanding scripture? I (personally) have learned just as much from non-Christians as I have 'genuine' Christians as you label them.

Secondly, 'genuine' Scientists (regardless of their religion) are only interested in the scientific data they find, not with the scrutiny of those of any particular faith. (Remember Galileo?)

Third, How has scripture been twisted to accomodate evolution?
I'd submit it is just as much a lie to twist science to accomodate the beliefs of those who submit to the YEC & Creation Ministries movements.

The Bible is not a science book. To try to make it into one is the true twisting of scriptures.

Today at 09:53 AM Micaiah said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677167#post677167)
I believe there are many Christians who follow Christ and yet believe that God used evolution as a method for Creation. While there are serious logical implications for this belief, .....

Yes, I am a Christian, yet I do not deny that populations of animals/plants/microorganisms do indeed involve over time. What serious logical implications are you implying?

Today at 09:53 AM Micaiah said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677167#post677167)

You are confusing my statement re the plain teaching of Scripture with a literal interpretation of all Scripture. I do not suggest that all Scripture should be interpreted literally. We have been over this before. The internal evidence indicates Genesis is a historical account of Creation.

How does Genesis account for the science which shows a 4.5 billion year old earth? How does Genesis account for the 77,000 +/- new plant species which exist in our tree farms/greenhouses/horticulture industry which previously didn't exist? How does Genesis account for the continuing emergence of new bacteria strains? How does Genesis account for thousands of new breeds of cats, dogs, horses, cattle, etc. which have appeared within the last hundred years or so?

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 09:08 AM lucaspa said this in Post #70

You do realize, don't you, that it is that same "fallen man" that makes the interpretations of the Bible?  Yes, God may have inspired the Bible, but it is humans who decide what intepretation they use.  Now, your statements on pride and insistence on being right describe Biblical literalists perfectly.  They insist that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.

No, the Bible is not of personal or private interpertation. But we understand the Bible as we are lead by the Holy Spirit of truth. With a mind that has been or is being restored to God origional purpose and intention.

You keep coming back for more lucaspa, because there is something in what I am saying that you want. You get mad at me and say your never going to talk to me again, yet here you are wanting to know more from a person who admits he does not know as much about Biology as you do.

2 Peter 1:20-21
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The same Holy Sprit that inspired Holy, Sanctifed, Consecrated men of God to write scripture, is now at work in us so that we can know the meaning of scripture. So it is not up to ME to teach you the Bible. It is up to the Holy Spirit of Truth to be your teacher. Even you can have the greatness of God in you. Plain ordinary people who are willing to be used by God, go down in the history books as being great men. Look at Gideon, all he asked was, if God is with us, where are the miracles. He believed and expected great things from God. Otherwise he was considered the least in his family and his family was considered the smallest at the time. But the God Gideon served was a great God.

You have already admitted you don't know anything about biology, either.

You just do not seem to be able to get anything right. You really need to purify your heart. You really need to get the love of God into your heart and get the contentions & strife out of there. If I did not know anything about Biology, I would not even know what a cell was. (cytoplast, blastula and so forth) I said all I have in the way of formal education is what I learned in High School. My mom was a bacteriaologist. My dad a medical doctor, they taught me a little bit about it. Also I read a little but here and there, I am sort of a self taught person. But I do not have any sort of formal education in Biology. I studied technical theater in collage, then I worked as a carpenter doing renovation work.  So I do not know what a person with a degree would know about Biology.

Yet from your admitted ignorance

"From my admited ignorance." You have a problem with pride if you think I am ignorant and you should know by now, we admit to nothing. Why should we admit to anything, people make up enough stuff about us to use against us as it is. Also, we never tell all we know. Because then we would be empty headed. Also, why should we let the other guy know as much as we know.

you state categorically that Schroeder is correct about physics and that evolution is wrong.[/I] [/B]

Unless your name is Timothy Leary, I am impressed with Harvard. I am impressed with MIT. They are not perfect, but they are the best in their field. I have not heard a valid arguement against Schroeder's theorys, only I have heard people say they do not believe it, without coming up with any reason as to why they do not beleive it. They are searching for someone, somewhere who can offer a valid arguement against Schroeder.

Also, I said Schroeder is deeply rooted in established Hebrew theology that can trace it's roots all the way back to Moses. He builds his work on the work of a 13 century doctor and rabbi, who builds his work on those that went before him.

When you have three generations of people who build their work on people who worked a whole life time before them, you usually have a lot more solid of a theory, than someone who puts about 5 min. with of effort into trying to say it's wrong.  

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:51 AM Smilin said this in Post #87
How does Genesis account for the science which shows a 4.5 billion year old earth? [/img]

If and it is a BIG IF the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, then there are three creation theorys to explain that. One is the gap theory, which seems to have more gaps in it and more that it does not explain than what it tries to explain. Then second, you could take the 4.5 billion years and divide it by 7. But if your going to do that, you may as well believe in the YEC theory of creation, it would be easier to defend. Then there is double in half the time theory. We know the size of the univese doubles in half the time. Because it is moving away from itself. We know that life usually increases double in half the time, because cells divide and double, then they double and they double and so on.

So that gives you 2.25 billion years for day one, 1.125 billion years for day two, half of that for day three and so on.

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:33 AM Micaiah said this in Post #85 

Would you like to continue our verse by verse analysis of the first two chapters.

Wow, a Bible study, awesome!

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 09:19 AM lucaspa said this in Post #72 

I have read commentary on the Bible by such Christian theologians as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and others.  Whether I share their beliefs or not I can accurately represent them. 

Why don't you give John Wesley a try? 

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/ 

Smilin · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 11:06 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #89 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677270#post677270)

If and it is a BIG IF the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, then there are three creation theorys to explain that. One is the gap theory, which seems to have more gaps in it and more that it does not explain than what it tries to explain. Then second, you could take the 4.5 billion years and divide it by 7. But if your going to do that, you may as well believe in the YEC theory of creation, it would be easier to defend. Then there is double in half the time theory. We know the size of the univese doubles in half the time. Because it is moving away from itself. We know that life usually increases double in half the time, because cells divide and double, then they double and they double and so on.

So that gives you 2.25 billion years for day one, 1.125 billion years for day two, half of that for day three and so on.

I asked how Genesis accounted for the accepted scientific age of the Earth. You digressed with creation theories which is totally off topic.

If any Christian is to accept Genesis as a literal history of the creation, then how does it explain the age of the earth (obtained scientifically from Uranium decay rates)

A simple question.

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:33 AM Micaiah said this in Post #85

You assert there are contradictions in Genesis. I assume you refer to an apparent contradiction if the accounts are read as they are intended - as historical accounts of Creation. When pressed to give your understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture you refused.

I gave you the understanding of most Christians of the plain teaching of Genesis 1-8: A single deity -- Yahweh -- created.  Put another way:
"The creation story of the Old Testament does not answer the question, "How did the world come to be?" with the reply, "God has created it," but it answers the question: "Whence has the history of the People of God received its meaning?" with the reply, "God has given to the history of the People of God its meaning by the Creation."(2)

"When we open the Bible and begin reading from Creation toward the call of Israel, we are really reading the story backward.  Israel came to believe that the Word of God created a historical community, a social order (Ex. 15:16, "the people whom thou hast created"; echoed in Isa. 43:1-2), before she affirmed that "by the word of the Lord were the heavens made." The earlier Old Epic (j) creation story and the later Priestly (P) version are both secondary to the ancient Israelite witness which pointed to Yahweh's saving deeds in the Exodus, ..."To speak of God as Creator, then, is not to make an affirmation about the manufacture of nature.  Were this the case, the old oriental myths which describe the birth of the gods out of the previously existing stuff of chaos and which portray one of these gods making the world in a great battle with the powers of chaos, could be replaced rationally by the doctrine of evolution.  But the biblical creation faith deals primarily with the meaning of human history.  The great affirmation of the Bible is that the meaning, first disclosed in the events of Israel's history, is the meaning upon which the world is founded.  The redemptive Word, by which Israel was created as the People of God, is none other than the creative Word by which the heavens were made.  The point bears reemphasis that in the Bible creation is not an independent doctrine, but is inseparably related to the basic story of the people in which Yahweh is presented as the actor and redeemer.  Salvation and creation belong together (cf Isa. 43:14-19, 51:9-10).  Therefore, to proclaim God as Creator is, as so often in the Psalms (cf Ps. 29, 33, 104), a call to worship.  It is a summons to acknowledge now the foundation and source of the meaning of our history."  Bernhard W. Anderson, The Earth Is The Lord's,:  An Essay on the biblical Doctrine of Creation, in Is God a Creationist?  Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 176-196.

You are the one that claimed the Genesis accounts are to be read as historical accounts of Creation.  I claimed they were not to be so read and gave my reasons.

I'm prepared to continue our discussion and tackle this issue of apparent contradictions when you demonstrate you are able to give an accurate rendering of the plain meaning of Scripture. Would you like to continue our verse by verse analysis of the first two chapters.

That's a nice duck, Micaiah.  Because to you a "plain meaning" is agreement with your interpretation. Since the validity of your interpretation is the issue at hand, if I do what you say then there is nothing to discuss.

I don't think we disagree on what a literal interpretation is.  What we disagree on is whether that interpretation is the correct one.  I gave some of my reasons for concluding that your "plain meaning" is not the real meaning or intent.  Now it's your turn. Feel free to try to show how the contradictions are not contradictions. 

Also, I asked you some questions a few posts back.  They are below.  I'd like the courtesy of an answer.

A question you have never addressed: what negative effects on Christianity happen if God did create by the processes discovered by science, including evolution?  Is God any less the Creator? Is Jesus any less the Savior? What changes? 

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:22 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #83

Creationism is not false. Creation had a creator. We have not yet entered into the perfect age and so our understanding of creation has not yet been perfected.

John, once again you are not reading what I wrote. I said: "meant that creationism was false. Instead, Christians realized that God had created the universe by the processes discovered by science, including evolution. 

Now, where in there is a denial that Creation had a Creator?

Creationism is not the statement: "God created". That statement is creation.  Creationism is the various specific ideas of how God created.  All versions of creationism have in common that God zapped individual species into existence separately and that species cannot transform to other species.

For Christians, evolution is simply the how God created.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?  It's a simple concept. It's even theological and therefore lies in your area of supposed expertise.

Since we do not know everything there is to know about the physical universe, they would agree that our understanding of creation has not been perfected.

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 11:15 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #91

Why don't you give John Wesley a try? 

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/ 

Wesley was part of the "others".  Do you have a particular sermon you think I should revisit?

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:23 AM Micaiah said this in Post #84

As stated above, the internal evidence shows Genesis is a historical record of events 'In the beginning...'. You have failed or refused to accept this method of interpretation.  

You haven't addressed how you change the meaning of Luke 2:1.

The internal evidence shows that Genesis is not a historical record. It is a theological document. In trying to read it as literal history, you miss the theology.  But then, bibliolatry will do that.

Have you noticed that Genesis 1 is divided into 2 major divisions of 3 days with each day having 2 major creations?  Do you really think creation went by the numbers like that?  What you have is the numerology of the Hebrews and others of the time where the numbers 2, 3, and 7 were considered important.  So the creation story was such that those numbers are featured. 

Also, are you aware that Genesis is a song?  So is the whole Torah.  If you go into a synagogue on any Saturday you will hear the Cantor sing it.  The phrase "morning and evening" are in there to keep the meter in Hebrew. Another internal indication that it is not literal history.

By these reasons and the others I have given you, I have, like most Christians, rejected your interpretation.  Considered it, tested it, and found the interpretation false.

The real reason is a desire to make Scripture accomodate secular beliefs on origins,

Micaiah, there was no "secular beliefs on origins" when a literal interpretation was rejected. Remember, the people who rejected the interpretation were Christians and often ministers.  None of them gave up their faith.  Also remember St. Augustine of Hippo writing in the 400s.  Long before any scientific evidence was around to contradict your interpretation Augustine rejected it.  So did John Calvin.

Other methods of interpretation give you the latitude to distort Scripture to make it say whatever you want.

I don't see that at all. For instance, I don't see any way for Scripture to say that God didn't create.  Do you?

I would have thought your scientific training would force you to take a more honest and objective approach.

And that is what is being used. It is your approach that is not honest, because you decide what the interpretation is and won't change it.  It is also dishonest because you aren't consistent in applying that interpretation everywhere. Remember Luke 2:1.  Luke is writing an historical account, yet you don't insist on "all the world was taxed" as meaning Japanese and Eskimos were taxed. Yet by a plain meaning that is exactly what happened.

Matthew 7:1-5 would seem to apply to you here. 

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:42 AM Micaiah said this in Post #86

I'm off for the night. I strongly recommend Lucaspa that you have the courage to speak in the first person rather than adopting the third person in these discussions. In other words, have the courage to let us know what you believe.

God says the cowardly will not enter the kingdom of God!

You have to focus on the merits of the evidence and arguments, Micaiah. Besides, no matter what I answer you won't accept me anyway, remember?

Whether or not I enter the kingdom of God is no concern of yours.  And trying to trick me by calling me names such as "cowardly" is false witness.  I'd look to your own standing, Micaiah, before you worry about mine. Again, you should pay better attention to Matthew 7:1-5.

Consider this, Micaiah.  I claim your interpretation of Genesis is erroneous, but I don't call you names and I don't threaten your standing with God.  Interesting that you do both to me.

Good night.  Pleasant dreams.

JohnR7 · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 11:53 AM lucaspa said this in Post #97
Whether or not I enter the kingdom of God is no concern of yours.  And trying to trick me by calling me names such as "cowardly" is false witness. 

He is just giving you a quote from the Bible.

Rev. 21:8
    But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Rev. 21:1
    Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Does it interest you that there is going to be a New Heaven and a New Earth?

Do you know anything about Brimstone? In the Greek it seems to be sulpher that was dug from a stone in the ground. But in the Hebrew it seems to be the sap from a cyprus tree.

I saw where they use sulpher a lot in medicine. I think they use to use it to cleanse and to purify.

lucaspa · Feb 26, 2003

Today at 10:54 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #88

No, the Bible is not of personal or private interpertation. But we understand the Bible as we are lead by the Holy Spirit of truth.

Then the Holy Spirit must have thousands of personalities, because there are over 20,000 Christian denominations each with a different interpretation of the Bible. 

You keep coming back for more lucaspa, because there is something in what I am saying that you want. You get mad at me and say your never going to talk to me again,

John, when did I say I was never going to talk to you again? When you say things like this, it's very hard for me to come up with euphemisms for "liar". 

you are wanting to know more from a person who admits he does not know as much about Biology as you do.

Where did you get the idea I wanted to know more from you? All I'm doing is continuing to show up your falsehoods. 

2 Peter 1:20-21
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

That's prophecy, not interpretation. Try to stick to topic, John.  Interpretations are done by humans.  

I said all I have in the way of formal education is what I learned in High School. My mom was a bacteriaologist. My dad a medical doctor, they taught me a little bit about it.

You claimed you did not know what symbiosis was, but posted Hovind that evolution could not explain any of the thousands of instances.  So you are ignorant of biology but make absolute claims concerning biology.

I asked you in that thread a theological question: What is the theological difference between a person who states false witness and a person who repeats false witness without any attempt to see if it is false witness?  You didn't answer, John.  Are we going to get a theological answer here?

"From my admited ignorance." You have a problem with pride if you think I am ignorant and you should know by now, we admit to nothing.

"We"? Is this the royal "we" or the "we" of the voices in your head? So now you deny admitting that you didn't know what symbiosis was?  You deny admitting ignorance of biology?

Why should we admit to anything, people make up enough stuff about us to use against us as it is. Also, we never tell all we know. Because then we would be empty headed. Also, why should we let the other guy know as much as we know.

More "we".  However, why shouldn't you let the other guy know as much as you know?  Isn't concealing knowledge a form of deception?  What's the theological position of deception?  Of course, this is another problem you must have with science, because scientists go around telling everyone everything we know so that the "other guy" will know as much as we do.

I have not heard a valid arguement against Schroeder's theorys,

Ostrich again.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4356news8-2-2000.asp

When you have three generations of people who build their work on people who worked a whole life time before them, you usually have a lot more solid of a theory, than someone who puts about 5 min. with of effort into trying to say it's wrong.  

But you don't necessarily have a correct theory. If the work of the previous generations was wrong to start, then you haven't go much of a chance.  Austin bases his young earth geology on that of Henry Morris who based his on George McReady Price's.  Both Price and Morris worked their whole lives on the idea of young earth.  But both were wrong and so is Austin.

See the AiG for errors in Schroeder's math.

Faded_Mystery · Feb 26, 2003

ok this is my first post, so go easy

I've browsed most of the posts, there are quite a few so if i repeat or get anything wrong i apologise.

Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days":

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible).
Day 7: God rested. Followers of the Documentary Hypothesis believe this to have been a later addition, 1 placed there to give theological justification for the Sabbath (Saturday as a day of rest).

This sequence does contain some problems.

Light was listed as being created on day 1, but its source (the sun and stars) did not appear until day 4. Most creation scientists, who generally support the literal interpretation of this creation story, have a solution to this puzzle. Many say that light initially came from God, before he created the sun and stars.
Birds were said to be created before other land animals. Paleontologists, who almost universally support the theory of evolution, point out that the fossil record shows the opposite order. Creation scientists discount this belief. Most regard the rock layers containing the fossil record as having been laid down during the flood of Noah; thus, the fossils do not represent the evolution of the species of animals and birds.
The most controversial debate over this creation story relates to its time span. Genesis 1 and 2 explain how Creation of Earth's life forms, the Earth itself, and the rest of the universe took six days. Supporters of the theory of evolution find evidence for a universe that has been evolving for about 14 billion years.

Conflicts between the creation stories: There are some apparent inconsistencies between the first and second creation accounts: Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days; Genesis 2:4 implies it is one day.
In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.
In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.
Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".
In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

Religious conservatives feel that they they have harmonized these apparent inconsistencies.

Exodus 20:11 Creation is described as taking six days.
Exodus 31:17 God made the heavens and earth in six days.
Job 38:4 to 38:7 The creation of the earth is described as occurring on a single morning "when the morning stars sang together."

There is a good website that has info contained about this but i can't post it - new user, sorry. It's where i got most of the info. above from.

Personally I believe that the creation story as detailed in genesis is not to be taken as a literal historical account, this i feel does not take a way from my faith or my walk.

Science is constantly evolving and theories are only "correct" until the next theory. Science is a flawed in that our perceptions are not all encompasing, we are not omniscient and therefore do not know everything or connot break down everything into fundamental truths. This is not to say that science is wrong, science has been proven to be correct, bacteria and anti-biotics for instance, us orbiting the sun etc.

From my personal point of view, science is the continued discovery about the mechanisms of creation and that the further down you go right down to DNA and the possibility of evolution it makes God seem even more magnificant, nature and the universe is just so incredibly complex.

I believe as a christian that you should believe in a creator God, this doesn't mean that you have to view genesis as an exact historical account, certianly not from a human point of view where a day is a 24hr period.

To ask a question, not sure of the answer and i haven't looked at the scriptural evidence but...say genesis is correct and that it was made in 6 days do these have to have to be of a 24hr period. Perhaps the period of days is an expression.
On the seventh day God rested, if when we die we enter Gods 'rest' does this mean that we are still living in Gods day of rest? A pretty big day! Therefore the '6 days' could have been millions/billions of years.

I have noticed that quite a few people have been getting quite impassioned, i know that this issue may mean a lot to some people and that no matter what evidence either way is presented will refuse to bow down to the other 'side' but i would urge calmness and rationality. There is no need to imply that people are cowardly or anything else of a similar nature.
I feel that personally creationism vs. evolution or six 24hr periods vs. billions of years is largely irrelevant to whether you are a man of faith or not. I don't believe that the bible is a science book, the bible doesn't answer many questions in black and white about the universe or other issues. It show's us how to live our lives, it helps us glimpse some of purpose on nature of God, the Lords love for all of us any many other such wonderful things. The bible is wonderful and it helps my walk with the Lord no end, and i believe it is that walk and our love for the Lord Jesus that matters to God not whether we believe genesis is to be taken as the world was created in six 24hr periods, we call days.
We should be able to come together to be able to diccuss issues such as this without feeling like we are being judged.
If a brother (or sister

) sins then we should rebuke them but by stating personal non inflammatory opinions and arguments on an issue such as this then which do not go contrary to accepted christian doctine, see the nicene creed, then we should read with equanimity and respond with equanimity.

I hope everything makes sense and i haven't offended anyone, i apologise if i have.

PS: Smilin - O'siyo Oginalii Tsilugi etc... is that cherokee? Just askin' outa curiousity, cheers.

Creationism

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Member

Similar threads