An interesting analysis of the word "day" in Genesis

[Karaite]

Actually, you have not read many of the posts around here. The belief in an old earth *pre-dates* the belief in evolution.

Well, I am sure that the idea that the earth is older than we think existed before Darwin's theory was presented. Although the idea of an evolutionary process existed before Darwin's time, it only took off with Darwin.

But the only reason I usually include evolution is because, in today's world, when one is present, the other is also present. It is almost a sure thing, that anyone claiming the earth to be 5+ billion years old, is also someone who believes that we evolved from lower forms of life. Even the IDist believes this, despite the constant attack on the Darwinist claim that it had no guiding supernatural force behind it. All the IDist does is claim that, it was God who guided it. In either case, we have the problems of reconciling these claims with the stories of the Bible.

If you don't believe in macro-evolution, but instead believe that God created all species in their own groups, with the ability to only transform/evolve within their species, without creating new species--then I will retract my statement.

However, if you are an evolutionists, or IDist, then I believe I am correct in my assumption. And should not be penalized for it.

The idea that science insists on an old earth to accommodate evolutionary teaching is ignorant beyond belief.

And who do you say made this claim? I can't recall when I made this claim. As far as I know, I merely pointed out that the old age theory would, most likely lead us to evolution as well. I never said that the old earth theory is designed to support evolution.

As it seems, it is you who is making assumptions about what I said, or believe.

There are Christian scientists (the real types, the ones who actually have degrees from real universities and actually worked as scientists) who oppose evolution by know that the earth is billions of years old.

Ah, so a christian is not a scientist, if he does not believe in an old earth? Sounds pretty exclusive to me, huh? Pretty much the same as the Darwinist, a person cannot be a scientist if he/she does not believe in evolution. Old Earth and Evolution would seem to be pre-requisites for being accepted into the scientific community.

How then can we ever even verify any of these claims, if it is necessary to assume that they are all true, before you can even begin work as a scientist? All the work you do is guided in the direction to prove, but anything that may seem to be contrary to the preconceived belief, is discarded as inconclusive, or as not useful.

Who is making it all metaphor, or whatever we want? I always start with a literal reading unless and until there is a very good reason to adopt a different reason.

Lucaspa claims that the story of Genesis was created by the exiled Jews, because they wanted to make the people see the reason for the Shabbat and other stuff like that.

What!? You sit there are basically call us all non-Christians and you have the nerve to say I am attacking you? Shame on you.

Okay, show me where I said you were not a christian?

That I asked you if you were "a BIBLE-believing Christian" does not mean that I said that 'you are not a Christian'. That is quite a stretch.

Our sinfulness may, indeed, be part of our physical nature (as Lucaspa explained, there is a very strong explanation for this in evolution), it is not linked with physical death.

Ah, but that is with the assumption that evolution is a fact. If we believe that death existed before Adam's fall, then it is obvious that physical death is not the result of sin. But if we take it from the Scriptures, we cannot so confidently make the same assertion. As I said, it is all over the Scriptures, and it was the belief of the ancient Israelites.

In this case, what you are doing is using evolution as your primary source of defining the theological concepts found in the Scriptures.

Also, it was I who said that "sin" would be a need for our existence, if taken from an evolutionary perspective.

We do not die physically because we sin, we die physically even if we are washed free of all sins by God’s redemption. Jesus was sinless and His body suffered physical death. Sin without redemption equals spiritual death, it has nothing to do with physical death.

We die physically not because "we sin", but because Adam sinned, and through him we inherited a decaying body. We inherited his flesh. But the spirit of Adam was not inherited; we are each an individual spirit, all subject to God's judgment individually. The only reason the spirit dies is because of sin by the individual. So, Adam could not be the one from whom we inherited sin.

Jesus sacrifice was to give "immediate" redemption to the soul, but in the promise it also includes a new body, a redeemed body. It is necessary to have a pure spirit, before you can enter a pure body. If the spirit is impure, it will make the body impure. This is supported by Jesus, in one of his treatments of the Pharisees: "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." (Matt 23:26)

Ah, but you see how foolish assumptions can make you. Your presumptiveness knows no bounds.

"And whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

First, I am not a liberal, but a conservative: politically, morally and in my Christian walk.

One, I had you mixed up with lucaspa. Two, even if you are supposed to be a conservative, that does not exclude you from being liberal Biblically.

At least not in my book.

Second, I did learn the Bible thoroughly. It was because I did NOT follow blindly that I saw through the false teachings of YEC’ism. What surprised me was not that they were not speaking the truth, but that there were so many others out there (most of Christianity) who also knew that YEC’ism was simply not true.

Yea, that is why you think that Yom Ehad means an epoch, as opposed to one day?

Look, I have neither claimed that the earth was young, nor did I claim that it was old. I merely stated that if anyone wanted to take the story of Genesis as not being the literal explanation of creation, then it would be better to do it by taking the whole story as metaphor, but not trying to take the 'yom' in it, and make it mean whatever they wanted to mean, giving no regard to the context in which it is found.

I am not a strict believer in the literal interpretation (of the story of creation), I simply don't see any indisputable reason why I should not take it at face value. I am not a geologist, so I don't know the hard facts of this. The only thing I can rely on is on "other people's work", which leaves me with controversy anyways. I will not outright claim that YECs are allowing theology to shape their conclusions, nor will I claim that those who claim that the earth is billions of years old are only being bias to come preconceived beliefs of theirs.

I can only hope that someday I will manage to verify the evidences myself, and then make my decision to either continue with my current belief, or to change.

Oh, I think all Christians are filled with God’s Spirit, but I don’t believe in the charismatic teachings. They are as false as YEC’ism

And what do you interpret as "God's spirit"?

 

[Vance]

Karaite said:
But the only reason I usually include evolution is because, in today's world, when one is present, the other is also present. It is almost a sure thing, that anyone claiming the earth to be 5+ billion years old, is also someone who believes that we evolved from lower forms of life.

But see, this is why I gave you those links to show that there ARE a significant number of Christians who believe the earth and universe are as old as science says (and for the reasons science says, not some speculative theory based on speeding up time).

Personally, I believe that God created most, if not all, of the diversity we see in living things around us through the process of evolution (although I still consider it possible that Man was a special creation). The same way that He allows the process of photosynthesis and sexual reproduction, etc, to also contribute to the creation process. This is besides the point, however. What I am showing you is that people do not believe in an old earth because it allows time for evolution. The evidences of an old earth are dramatic and compelling without reference to evolution at all.


And who do you say made this claim? I can't recall when I made this claim. As far as I know, I merely pointed out that the old age theory would, most likely lead us to evolution as well. I never said that the old earth theory is designed to support evolution.

As it seems, it is you who is making assumptions about what I said, or believe.

But there simply is no nexus between the two which would compel a person who believed in an old earth to then believe in evolution. So, when you say that one *leads* to the other, you are creating a cause and effect scenario that does not exist. It is true that people who believe in one *tend* to believe in the other, but this is simply because the type of person willing to view the evidence, both in God’s Scripture and in God’s Creation, will very often arrive at both conclusions. Personally, I came to accept an old earth LONG before I came to accept evolution.

Ah, so a christian is not a scientist, if he does not believe in an old earth? Sounds pretty exclusive to me, huh? Pretty much the same as the Darwinist, a person cannot be a scientist if he/she does not believe in evolution. Old Earth and Evolution would seem to be pre-requisites for being accepted into the scientific community.

But now you are reading extra meaning into my statements. I never said a scientist must believe in an old earth to be worthy of the name. I was simply distinguishing the scientist I was referring to from those Creation Scientists who are not trained scientists and/or who got their degrees from diploma mills (like Hovind and his ilk).

But, as a practical matter, if a Christian is a real scientist in the relevant fields of study, he will almost assuredly believe in an old earth. There might be a few who hold out (like Glen Morton did for a long time), but the fact that 0.015% of scientists (including both Christian and non-Christian) in the relevant fields of study do believe in an old earth (and in evolution) indicates that a very small percentage (but obviously not *as* small) of the Christian scientists also agree in an old earth.

How then can we ever even verify any of these claims, if it is necessary to assume that they are all true, before you can even begin work as a scientist? All the work you do is guided in the direction to prove, but anything that may seem to be contrary to the preconceived belief, is discarded as inconclusive, or as not useful.

Ah, but that is where you seem to misunderstand science. Unlike YEC’ism which states right up front that it is starting from a preconceived belief which directs their studies, the scientific community as a whole is willing (and does) challenge everything (see my thread on the Problem with Creation Science). There are no sacred cows. True, there are theories and concepts that have been so thoroughly reviewed and tested against the data that it would take a great deal of persuasive evidence to redirect scientific thought (theory of gravity, evolution, germ theory, the age of the earth, etc), but these arrived at this status after being doubted, attacked, scrutinized, etc.

You can be assured that through the last 100 years, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of secular scientists who have set out to prove that evolution can not be a viable theory. Can you imagine the status and fame that would come with being the person who falsified evolution! Science is currently set up to encourage such skepticism and challenge and reward those who overturn accepted thought.


Okay, show me where I said you were not a christian?

That I asked you if you were "a BIBLE-believing Christian" does not mean that I said that 'you are not a Christian'. That is quite a stretch.

Actually, to infer I am not a Bible-believing Christian, or can not be if I hold the beliefs I do, is tantamount to saying I am not a Christian. The Bible is the basis for Christian belief, and to not believe the Bible is to not be a Christian, in my view. I believe everything the Bible says is true. The question is determining exactly what it says and how it is saying it. Insisting on a literal view is only sometimes the right approach to getting God’s true message.


Ah, but that is with the assumption that evolution is a fact. If we believe that death existed before Adam's fall, then it is obvious that physical death is not the result of sin. But if we take it from the Scriptures, we cannot so confidently make the same assertion. As I said, it is all over the Scriptures, and it was the belief of the ancient Israelites.

Well, that is only partially correct. There are many Christians who believe in death before Adam’s Fall but do not believe in evolution. Check out this article for just a single example.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creature_mortality.shtml?main

But yes, given two viable interpretations of the Scripture, I will obviously let the evidence of God’s Creation, his *other* Word to us, help inform which of the two I choose. This was necessary for us to correct the geocentrism error in Christianity a few centuries ago (although it took the Church a few hundred years to admit this).

In this case, what you are doing is using evolution as your primary source of defining the theological concepts found in the Scriptures.

No, not as a primary force. Scripture is always the starting point. But it is essential that we *do* consider the evidence of God’s Creation in choosing how we interpret Scripture. The evidence of an old earth, for example, is so overwhelming that it would be nonsensical to NOT take that evidence into consideration when reviewing what Genesis one really means. While it might not actually change the particular interpretation, the consideration of God’s physical evidence should be part of the analytical process. Based on a review of Scripture exclusively, there would be no reason at all to believe in an Earth more than 6,000 to 12,000 years old. In fact, the Scripture does, on the surface, seem to imply it. So, if anyone believes that the Earth might be older than that it is ONLY because of the evidence from outside the Bible.

If one is to allow the evidence of God’s Creation to influence to ANY degree their reading of Scripture regarding the age of the earth, or geocentrism, or a flat earth, etc, then why would they not consider the physical evidence of evolution and bring that into their analysis? It might not alter a person’s previous viewpoints, but at least the evidence was objectively and sincerely considered. YEC’s state that this analysis should not be done since their presumptions of a young earth and against evolution are their *starting point*.


We die physically not because "we sin", but because Adam sinned, and through him we inherited a decaying body. We inherited his flesh. But the spirit of Adam was not inherited; we are each an individual spirit, all subject to God's judgment individually. The only reason the spirit dies is because of sin by the individual. So, Adam could not be the one from whom we inherited sin.

No, you are right, we did not inherit our spirit from Adam biologically, but we did inherit the "separatedness", the "death", from Adam’s Fall. And you are right that we do not die physically because we sin: there is simply no connection between sinning and physical death. There can not be, given the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice. If physical death is tied to sin, then the redemptive gift of His sacrifice would only be successful if, upon acceptance, we were then free from physical death. But we are not. Your position makes Jesus’ sacrifice a failure.

Jesus sacrifice was to give "immediate" redemption to the soul, but in the promise it also includes a new body, a redeemed body. It is necessary to have a pure spirit, before you can enter a pure body. If the spirit is impure, it will make the body impure. This is supported by Jesus, in one of his treatments of the Pharisees: "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." (Matt 23:26).

But a new body still has nothing to do with physical death. Even though we get a new body, we still physically die. Nothing Adam did caused physical death, and this is proven because nothing Jesus did prevents physical death.


Look, I have neither claimed that the earth was young, nor did I claim that it was old. I merely stated that if anyone wanted to take the story of Genesis as not being the literal explanation of creation, then it would be better to do it by taking the whole story as metaphor, but not trying to take the 'yom' in it, and make it mean whatever they wanted to mean, giving no regard to the context in which it is found.

Oh, I agree that the Creation stories being allegorical, or symbolic is definitely a possibility, and one I consider. My point is that it is also possible to consider the alternate readings of the text itself. As I said, I start with literal, and work backwards from there only if the evidence is *extremely* persuasive. I believe that the evidence is very, very persuasive (99.9%) that the earth was not created in six 24 hour days less than 12,000 years ago. So my *first* step in the analysis when confronted with this evidence is to see whether I am reading the text incorrectly. Keep in mind that the "extended period of time" interpretation of YOM would still be a literal reading, just not the most common reading. Same with the alternate reading of "morning and evening". These are still literal readings of the text: they presume that the text is not allegorical, and is telling the story in a literal manner.

Only if it is shown to me that this alternate literal reading is actually less likely than an allegorical reading would I change my current thinking. The important thing to keep in mind is that none of this is able to be determined with absolute surety and that none of these are salvation issues. Which is why I am so dramatically opposed to YEC’ism which insists on rising it to the level of salvation issues and actually causes people to disbelieve the Bible.

I am not a strict believer in the literal interpretation (of the story of creation), I simply don't see any indisputable reason why I should not take it at face value. I am not a geologist, so I don't know the hard facts of this. The only thing I can rely on is on "other people's work", which leaves me with controversy anyways. I will not outright claim that YECs are allowing theology to shape their conclusions, nor will I claim that those who claim that the earth is billions of years old are only being bias to come preconceived beliefs of theirs.

Well, the YEC’s make it simple for you since they come right and say that they start with their theological concepts and view the physical evidence from there. Please check out my thread entitled "the Problem with Creation Science" here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t56050

I can only hope that someday I will manage to verify the evidences myself, and then make my decision to either continue with my current belief, or to change.

As we all do.


And what do you interpret as "God's spirit"?

The "helper" described by Jesus, that He would send after He was gone.

 

[Karaite]

But see, this is why I gave you those links to show that there ARE a significant number of Christians who believe the earth and universe are as old as science says (and for the reasons science says, not some speculative theory based on speeding up time).

But see, I do not deny that there are those who subscribe to the belief that the earth is as old as science says, and that there are those who subscribe to the theory of "Gap in Genesis." You are not paying attention.

Personally, I believe that God created most, if not all, of the diversity we see in living things around us through the process of evolution (although I still consider it possible that Man was a special creation).

So my assumption was correct; you do believe in darwinian evolution.

The same way that He allows the process of photosynthesis and sexual reproduction, etc, to also contribute to the creation process. This is besides the point, however. What I am showing you is that people do not believe in an old earth because it allows time for evolution. The evidences of an old earth are dramatic and compelling without reference to evolution at all.

And yet you continue to ignore what I say, and put in whatever you want, just so that you can make me look like some ignorant fool? Could you please read what I wrote?

But there simply is no nexus between the two which would compel a person who believed in an old earth to then believe in evolution.

So, can a YEC believe in darwinian evolution? No. Why not? Ah, because darwinian evolution requires "time"--quite an amount of time, I should say! So, once we have removed the "time obstacle", and we have "relied on science" (as you wish to make it seem, that YECs have no science), then the open door for evolution is as wide as it could ever be.

One way you could think of the earth as being old, yet not leave room for the evolution of man, or of other species, is by believing in the Gap theory, where Adam would symbolize a new creation "on earth", not a "new created earth."

BTW, I did not see you admit your error, for misunderstanding (whether intentionally, or unintentionally I can't say) and then concluding that my comment was "ignorant beyond belief."

And, so that you don't make up excuses as to why you did not call me ignorant, but only the idea itself, let me explain this. Ignorance is an attribute, it is not a separate entity, it does not exist on its own. An ignorant statement comes from an ignorant man, and when such abundance of ignorance ("beyond belief") is attributed to statement, then the man who is said to have made such statement is also being attributed the amount of ignorance. Therefore, for you to call a man's statement to be ignorant beyond belief, is the same as calling that man to be ignorant beyond belief.

There is no way of getting around your offense.

So, when you say that one *leads* to the other, you are creating a cause and effect scenario that does not exist.

Yes, I said "most likely", so it was not an absolute; it was a probability. It happens, and they are closely related. Evolution cannot exist without an old earth, eventhough to some an old earth can exist without evolution--but they have to apply some different kinds of interpretations, which don't necessarily come off as scientific.

My statement was not to say that it is impossible for someone who believes in an old earth, to deny evolution. I merely pointed out that there is a relationship, and that most people who reach to such conclusions (about the earth) as you (discrediting the YECs as non-scientists), then to them evolution is a plausible (and adoptable) theory.

For one who believes in an old earth, but does not yet accept evolution, the question of "why would God create the earth to be empty for billions of years?" becomes an issue. Isaiah says that God created the earth for it to be "inahbited".

Isaiah 45:18 - "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited)."

That is why you have God commanding the first couple to "fill and inahbit the earth". So, it does not fit so well that God would create the earth billions of years before it was supposed to be used. With this, comes the idea that there were inhabitants, and darwinian evolution doesn't seem like a problem. In fact, it seems to fill in the "empty" space, the gap as we may say.

It is true that people who believe in one *tend* to believe in the other, but this is simply because the type of person willing to view the evidence, both in God’s Scripture and in God’s Creation, will very often arrive at both conclusions.

I think I can see what you are implying, but...

Anyway, isn't that what I said? Then what is your complaint about? You seem to be arguing just because you don't want to say that I said something that was correct. (Or that you were incorrect, as I thought you would admit, after you called me ignorant beyond belief.)

Personally, I came to accept an old earth LONG before I came to accept evolution.

Good for you, then.

But now you are reading extra meaning into my statements. I never said a scientist must believe in an old earth to be worthy of the name. I was simply distinguishing the scientist I was referring to from those Creation Scientists who are not trained scientists and/or who got their degrees from diploma mills (like Hovind and his ilk).

I am sorry, but I fail to see how my comment does not express the same idea you just expressed above. [?] You are saying that creation-scientists (the ones who don't believe in an old earth) are not scientists, and/or that they don't have the degrees to back it up. And you say that the ones you refer to as scientists are the one who actually "have a degree" and believe in an old earth.

Forgive me please, for my inability to understand such complex statements. From my limited ability to think, you just seem to be saying the same thing.

By the way, what do you say of the scientists who are part of the Institute for Creation Research? They have both, Biological Scientists and Physical Scientists.

Ah, but that is where you seem to misunderstand science. Unlike YEC’ism which states right up front that it is starting from a preconceived belief which directs their studies, the scientific community as a whole is willing (and does) challenge everything (see my thread on the Problem with Creation Science).

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. You put blind faith in what other people tell you, and then you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

You can be assured that through the last 100 years, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of secular scientists who have set out to prove that evolution can not be a viable theory. Can you imagine the status and fame that would come with being the person who falsified evolution! Science is currently set up to encourage such skepticism and challenge and reward those who overturn accepted thought.

Yes, the idea of ever falsifying evolution is almost impossible. But it is not because evolution is a fact, but because the theory is used in such way that it makes it almost impossible to prove it wrong. As Phillip Johnson puts it, everything is evidence of evolution. Whatever happens, it is evolution that is doing it. Even if it denies the basic foundations of darwinism.

Actually, to infer I am not a Bible-believing Christian, or can not be if I hold the beliefs I do, is tantamount to saying I am not a Christian.

Are you ever wrong? It seems no matter what, you cannot be wrong, only OTHERS can be wrong.

I never said that you don't believe the Bible. I have stated it more than once, already, that I was talking about lucaspa, who said that the Genesis story was made up by the exiled Jews.

So, you are still wrong, and no matter how much you want to make it look as if you were justified in your attack, you are not justified.

Well, that is only partially correct.

No, in your case, which is how I used it, it is a fact.

But yes, given two viable interpretations of the Scripture, I will obviously let the evidence of God’s Creation, his *other* Word to us, help inform which of the two I choose.

LOL! His other Word? So, God gives us a fallible Word, and He also gives us a "eternal" Word? But the fallible Word is the one that will shape how we understand the "eternal Word"?

Science is never a complete science, it is based on theories, some are consistent, others are based on pure faith. Many fail, and are forgotten, others are failures that are never forgotten. In any case, there is no way you can relay on "subjective" studies, to shape your theology.

This was necessary for us to correct the geocentrism error in Christianity a few centuries ago (although it took the Church a few hundred years to admit this).

Ah, so just because people in that time believed that the earth was flat, because from their view, the way they saw it, it seemed flat. Then that proves that science will always hold the truth?

No, not as a primary force. Scripture is always the starting point. But it is essential that we *do* consider the evidence of God’s Creation in choosing how we interpret Scripture.

"...but when Scripture does not seem fit for me..." then I choose evolution to shape it?

The evidence of an old earth, for example, is so overwhelming that it would be nonsensical to NOT take that evidence into consideration when reviewing what Genesis one really means. While it might not actually change the particular interpretation, the consideration of God’s physical evidence should be part of the analytical process. Based on a review of Scripture exclusively, there would be no reason at all to believe in an Earth more than 6,000 to 12,000 years old. In fact, the Scripture does, on the surface, seem to imply it. So, if anyone believes that the Earth might be older than that it is ONLY because of the evidence from outside the Bible.

Then you admit that there is a conflict.

If one is to allow the evidence of God’s Creation to influence to ANY degree their reading of Scripture regarding the age of the earth, or geocentrism, or a flat earth, etc, then why would they not consider the physical evidence of evolution and bring that into their analysis? It might not alter a person’s previous viewpoints, but at least the evidence was objectively and sincerely considered. YEC’s state that this analysis should not be done since their presumptions of a young earth and against evolution are their *starting point*.

You said that no one has been able to prove evolution to be false. Can you prove evolution to be true? I am more than confident that you CAN'T, but it is not confidence such as that which you have in the idea that evolution is true, but a confidence derived from logic and reason. Strictly on logical grounds, the extent of the claims of evolution is extremely improbable. For one, it requires an extreme amount of time, which is impossible for any human to presence. But even on any of the other levels, I am confident that evolution fails.

I am ready to go home, so I won't touch on the rest of your post.

 

[Sinai]

Karaite: I don't think the answer lies in the use of the word "yom", but in the overall classification of the first chapter of Genesis.

Sinai: All right, then: How do you classify the first chapter of Genesis?

Karaite: Umm...is it not obvious?

Not from the way in which you have used the terms thus far.


Karaite: I am (with difficulty, of course) more able to accept that Genesis is metaphorical, than to take the word "yom" outside of its context, and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

Sinai: Fair enough. Using just the first chapter of Genesis as your context, what is the context of yom?

Karaite: Perhaps you were trying to say something, but you got confused? Genesis 1 is the context.

You said one should not take yom outside of its context (in the first chapter of Genesis. I am asking you for your interpretation of that context that causes you to think that the only acceptable meaning for yom in that chapter is for it to mean a 24-hour day.

 

[Karaite]

[/i]You said one should not take yom outside of its context (in the first chapter of Genesis. I am asking you for your interpretation of that context that causes you to think that the only acceptable meaning for yom in that chapter is for it to mean a 24-hour day.

Did I not answer, though? I pointed out the "evening and morning", didn't I?

If you notice, the first day mentioned, is when the components of a day are mentioned, i.e. 'and the light He called DAY, and the darkness He called Night...evening...morning...day one.'

How many evenings and mornings do you think "epoch one" would have had?

 

[Sinai]

Karaite: Maybe you were asking what are the important factors? One would be the use of "evening and morning."

Hebrew: Vayikra Elohim La-Or yom ve'La-Choshech Kara layelah va'yehi Erev va'yehi Voker [Yom Ehad]

English: Called God the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And occured evening, and occured morning--day one.

Evening and Morning are part of the day, not an epoch. Evening and Morning is how the Hebrews count days. The day begins with the evening, and ends with the morning. The fact that it would even declare it in the same order as the Hebrew calendar does, is inevitable proof that yom (as in Yom Ehad) is not referring to anything other than a literal day.

Although I can go along with most of your analysis, your absolutist conclusion does not appear to be supported by that analysis. Let's step back a bit and examine more closely your basis for that conclusion, and see if any other interpretation is possible (or even more likely).


The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.



Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:



1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and


3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

What causes you to conclude that the only possible meaning for this passage is a 24-hour day?

 

[Sinai]

Did I not answer, though? I pointed out the "evening and morning", didn't I?

If you notice, the first day mentioned, is when the components of a day are mentioned, i.e. 'and the light He called DAY, and the darkness He called Night...evening...morning...day one.'

How many evenings and mornings do you think "epoch one" would have had?

Sorry, Karaite: Rather than having one super-long response to your earlier post, I broke it into parts. After I had posted the first one (and was working on the second), you responded. Take a look at my response to your "evening and morning" post, and then we can consolidate these discussions on one subthread (since CF has now gone to subthread style).

Thanks.

 

[Sinai]

Karaite: But there would still be some explaining to do, if we conclude that, indeed, the earth is as old as these people claim it to be. For this is related to the claims that the world (animal, plants, and the earth itself) was already dying--which is in direct conflict with the most important concepts in Christian theology; "through one man sin entered...through sin death." <--This is a great complication, as simple as it may seem at first thought.

For one, it means that sin is not the cause of death, despite it being stated and restated, over and over again, throughout the Scriptures. (FYI--I am referring to the idea that death was not existent before Adam's fall, but that death came as a result of Adam's sin.) If this is not true, then Jesus' role would be totally different, and difficult to understand.

Sinai: Are you contending that Jesus' role was to save us from physical death? Where do you find that in the scriptures?

Karaite: No.

What was Jesus' role or mission?

 

[Karaite]

As I said previously, just because a word has more than one meaning, it does not mean that the meanings will always be applied to that word.

Tell me, why do we not do the same with the days of the flood? One, because we admit it is not possible to make the days mean epochs, just because there are times where day doesn't mean a definitive number, but a period of time (short and long). But why is this done with Genesis? Well, it is because people want to accomodate their own beliefs, and they have to find ways of "making the Scripture appear vague", so that they can use the apparent vagueness as an excuse for their beliefs.

But as I pointed out, "day one" presents us with the components of a literal day, i.e., day-light and night's-darkness, evening and morning. These four aspects, followed by the representation of "day one" are inevitable. It is as if the author knew that someone would attempt to question, or wonder about whether or not the account is speaking of a literal day, that it goes ahead and 'describes you the day.'

It is as if you asked the question, "so, how was the first day?" And the author responded, "there was light, and it was called day; there was darkness, and it was called night; the day began at evening, and it ended at morning; day one (compounded, cumulative).

 

[Sinai]

As I said previously, just because a word has more than one meaning, it does not mean that the meanings will always be applied to that word.

Tell me, why do we not do the same with the days of the flood? One, because we admit it is not possible to make the days mean epochs, just because there are times where day doesn't mean a definitive number, but a period of time (short and long). But why is this done with Genesis? Well, it is because people want to accomodate their own beliefs, and they have to find ways of "making the Scripture appear vague", so that they can use the apparent vagueness as an excuse for their beliefs.

But as I pointed out, "day one" presents us with the components of a literal day, i.e., day-light and night's-darkness, evening and morning. These four aspects, followed by the representation of "day one" are inevitable. It is as if the author knew that someone would attempt to question, or wonder about whether or not the account is speaking of a literal day, that it goes ahead and 'describes you the day.'

It is as if you asked the question, "so, how was the first day?" And the author responded, "there was light, and it was called day; there was darkness, and it was called night; the day began at evening, and it ended at morning; day one (compounded, cumulative).

In other words, you think the scriptures we have both quoted support a regular 24-hour day because you think the component parts of a literal day (daylight, darkness, evening and morning) are present.

What do you think is the source and the significance (if any) of the daylight, darkness, evening and morning? And how long did each last?

 

[Karaite]

In other words, you think the scriptures we have both quoted support a regular 24-hour day because you think the component parts of a literal day (daylight, darkness, evening and morning) are present.

What do you think is the source and the significance (if any) of the daylight, darkness, evening and morning? And how long did each last?

LOL! What's up with all the "you think"s? I did not imagine that the components were mentioned, they are there! Does it not say "day and night"? Does it not also say "evening and morning"? Why then do you say that "I think" that they are there?

Here is what I say:

In the same manner, I don't see how the days could not be literal, because the implications that come with mentioning 'day and night', 'evening and morning', just before presenting the first end of day, are too much to ignored. If it was supposed to be taken as epochs, I don't see any need to even mention evening and morning. The evening and morning are used to measure days, as we know them in a 24-hour period. The only reason this would be mentioned would be to indicate that it is speaking of real days, not epochs.

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance:I should point out that the reason I like to present this source, and that of Reasons to Believe ministry is that they are ANTI-evolutionist, but still accept the reality of an old universe. While I disagree with much of the teaching as a result (since I believe in evolution to a great extent), it is important for YEC's to realize that you don't have to be opposed to an old earth just because you are opposed to evolution.

Now that statement would be incorrect Vance. The fubnny part is that you even know your wrong, yet still posted this message.

The fossil record demonstrates a world wide flood...not evolution.

 

[Vance]

Karaite said:

So, can a YEC believe in darwinian evolution? No. Why not? Ah, because darwinian evolution requires "time"--quite an amount of time, I should say! So, once we have removed the "time obstacle", and we have "relied on science" (as you wish to make it seem, that YECs have no science), then the open door for evolution is as wide as it could ever be.
But you are reading my point backwards. You are correct that if you believe in a young earth, you can not believe in evolution. BUT, if you believe in an old earth, that does not mean that you MUST believe in evolution and it also does not follow that a belief in an old earth LEADS to a belief in evolution. Yes, it opens the door since recognizing the true age of the earth means that there is now time for evolution to happen. But evolution must still stand on its own as a theory, and even if you accept an old earth, you would still need to be convinced by the evidence for evolution. The fact that most have does not create a causal connection between the two.

One way you could think of the earth as being old, yet not leave room for the evolution of man, or of other species, is by believing in the Gap theory, where Adam would symbolize a new creation "on earth", not a "new created earth."

BTW, I did not see you admit your error, for misunderstanding (whether intentionally, or unintentionally I can't say) and then concluding that my comment was "ignorant beyond belief."

I said "The idea that science insists on an old earth to accommodate evolutionary teaching is ignorant beyond belief." This is a true statement. You had said "Your argument comes from the assumption that evolution is fact, and that the earth could not be created in six days." It was not completely clear what you meant by "your argument", but I pointed out that if you were referring to the concept that science insists on an old earth in order to accommodate evolution in some way, then this would, indeed be incredibly ignorant. If you were referring to a different "argument" of mine, then I would gladly retract any connection between my statement (which is true) and you..


Yes, I said "most likely", so it was not an absolute; it was a probability. It happens, and they are closely related. Evolution cannot exist without an old earth, even though to some an old earth can exist without evolution--but they have to apply some different kinds of interpretations, which don't necessarily come off as scientific.

Right, both an old earth and evolution fit together nicely, which they would if they were both true. But getting back to the point, I don’t think very many people at all believe in an old earth for any reason other than the evidence is so dramatically strong for an old earth. I doubt seriously that many people come to a decision about the age based on the concept of evolution. The idea that an old earth was first conceived as a necessary conclusion of evolution is the point that is patently false and I think you would agree with that.

My statement was not to say that it is impossible for someone who believes in an old earth, to deny evolution. I merely pointed out that there is a relationship, and that most people who reach to such conclusions (about the earth) as you (discrediting the YECs as non-scientists), then to them evolution is a plausible (and adoptable) theory.

I never say that YEC’s were non-scientists (although some are) only that the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of real scientists, even Christian scientists, do not believe in the YEC concepts.

For one who believes in an old earth, but does not yet accept evolution, the question of "why would God create the earth to be empty for billions of years?" becomes an issue. Isaiah says that God created the earth for it to be "inhabited".

Oh, I agree that the concept of an old earth empty for billions of years is untenable, but that is not what I see them saying. I see them saying that God did, indeed, create life all throughout Earth’s history, in stages, just like the Bible says. They only say that it didn’t happen through evolution, but a long series of special creations. See Hugh Ross’ ideas at www.reasons.org. I don’t agree with all of his concepts, but you can see basically what they are saying.



I think I can see what you are implying, but...

Anyway, isn't that what I said? Then what is your complaint about? You seem to be arguing just because you don't want to say that I said something that was correct. (Or that you were incorrect, as I thought you would admit, after you called me ignorant beyond belief.)

No, you were proposing a "cause and effect" nexus wherein believing in an old earth would somehow lead to a belief in evolution or a belief in an old earth was caused *by* a belief in evolution. In other words, a person who would not otherwise believe in one concept does so simply because he comes to believe in the other. I think this is a false concept.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how my comment does not express the same idea you just expressed above. [?] You are saying that creation-scientists (the ones who don't believe in an old earth) are not scientists, and/or that they don't have the degrees to back it up. And you say that the ones you refer to as scientists are the one who actually "have a degree" and believe in an old earth.

No, you still are not getting what I am saying. I am not saying that Creation Scientists, as a group, are not scientists. Read again what I said "I was simply distinguishing the scientist I was referring to from those Creation Scientists who are not trained scientists and/or who got their degrees from diploma mills (like Hovind and his ilk)."This says that my earlier statement was distinguishing between Hugh Ross and those promoting Creation Science, like Hovind, who are NOT real scientists and who did get their diplomas from diploma mills. This, by no means, refers to all Creation Scientists.

By the way, what do you say of the scientists who are part of the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org)? They have both, Biological Scientists (http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html) and Physical Scientists (http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html).
Sure they do. And these fall into that small minority of scientists who are Christian and believe YEC teachings.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. You put blind faith in what other people tell you, and then you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

Again, you are being very presumptive in assuming that I have blind faith in anything. This is a bad habit of YEC’s, whether you are one or not. I am not a YEC specifically *because* I don’t accept what people say on blind faith. Instead, I studied, reviewed the evidence, both in the study of the natural world and in the Scripture, from both positions, for many years before I decided that the YEC position was almost assuredly wrong in virtually every particular. Again, please read my OP in the thread on The Problem with Creation Science.

Yes, the idea of ever falsifying evolution is almost impossible. But it is not because evolution is a fact, but because the theory is used in such way that it makes it almost impossible to prove it wrong. As Phillip Johnson puts it, everything is evidence of evolution. Whatever happens, it is evolution that is doing it. Even if it denies the basic foundations of darwinism.

But "everything is evidence of evolution" only if it actually FITS evolutionary principals. In many areas, the theory has been clarified and corrected in the details, as ALL scientific theories are. This actually assures that the current theory is even more likely to be correct. The point is that if there were significant evidence which did not fit evolutionary thought and, thus, falsified it, a scientist will find it since there is every incentive to do so. So far, despite all this time, no one has done so.

I never said that you did not believe that you don't believe the Bible. I have stated it more than once, already, that I was talking about lucaspa, who said that the Genesis story was made up by the exiled Jews.

Well, what you said was this: "The majority of those who believe in the Bible, believe in the physical and spiritual death, not in only one. Would you classify yourself as a Bible believing Christian?"

It was definitely me, and not Lucaspa, who was talking about spiritual v. physical death. I am not sure what the purpose of that last question would serve other than to infer that if I did not believe in the physical death reading of the concept, I may not be a Bible believing Christian. I took offense that you would even raise the question, since to question whether someone believes the Bible is to question whether they are Christian.

The rest of the response is continued in another post since this one was too long for the forum to accept.

 

[Vance]

Karaite said (cont):

LOL! His other Word? So, God gives us a fallible Word, and He also gives us a "eternal" Word? But the fallible Word is the one that will shape how we understand the "eternal Word"?

No, neither of God’s messages to us are fallible, only Man’s interpretation of either can be fallible. How is God’s Creation fallible?

We have two sources of evidence about God’s Creation: The Scripture describing the Creation and what God actually created. Both of these sources are being interpreted by fallible Man. There have been undoubted cases where Man’s interpretation of the Creation has proved to be correct where Man’s interpretation of Scripture was false, as with Geocentrism. This can happen, and I think it has happened again with those who have interpreted Scripture to require a young earth and to preclude evolution as a means by which God can have created some, if not all, of the diversity of life on this planet.

Science is never a complete science, it is based on theories, some are consistent, others are based on pure faith. Many fail, and are forgotten, others are failures that are never forgotten. In any case, there is no way you can relay on "subjective" studies, to shape your theology.

First of all, the study of God’s Creation (science) is not nearly as subjective and transitory as you would like to present it. Do you doubt the theory of gravity? Do you doubt the process of photosynthesis, or the chemical make-up of various objects, or the millions of other scientific conclusions which you rely on every day of your life? Almost every action you take as you go through life is based on a blind assumption of the validity of a scientific conclusion using the exact same processes upon which evolution has been deemed to be almost assuredly correct.

Secondly, I believe it is folly NOT to take into consideration all the evidence God has provided us in order to come to conclusions regarding the origins issue. Yes, we must give everything their due weight, and the strength of the evidence for a given scientific theory must be weighed against the persuasiveness of a particular interpretation of Scripture.

Which leads to the third point: my theology should not be based solely on the subjective and fallible interpretations of Scripture any more than scientific conclusions. Your statement: "Science is never a complete science, it is based on theories, some are consistent, others are based on pure faith" can equally human interpretation of Scripture.



Ah, so just because people in that time believed that the earth was flat, because from their view, the way they saw it, it seemed flat. Then that proves that science will always hold the truth?

No, it means that science *can* hold the truth, even when fallible Man insists that the Scriptures must be read a certain way. And geocentrism was the believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the teaching that the earth actually revolved around the sun was in direct contradiction to the literal reading of Scripture. The flat earth belief (which had been held by some prominent members of the Church, but was not a universal Church belief) had been falsified by science long before geocentrism.



"...but when Scripture does not seem fit for me..." then I choose evolution to shape it?

No. When the evidence from God’s Creation is strong enough, it causes me to look closely at my plain reading in English, to see whether I could have it wrong. I check the original Hebrew and the other possible interpretations to see if there really is an inconsistency between the what the Bible says and the evidence from God’s Creation. If the evidence of God’s Creation is powerful enough, and there is more than one possible interpretation of the Scripture (which is still a literal reading, by the way), and there is a viable interpretation which seems to solve the discrepancy, I will, of course, consider it.

Even YEC’s do this with some regularity. When following the strict Usher counting put the earth at about 6,000 years old, they accepted this at first. Then when this time frame became less viable (due to historical record and archeological evidence), many YEC’s sought ways to extend that time somewhat within the context of Scripture. They did this by showing how the genealogies could contain gaps (which is likely true), thus pushing the date possibly as far back as 12,000 years (which was safely out of the danger area).

This is exactly the same thing: allowing the evidence from God’s Creation (in this case history and archeology) to inform how they interpreted Scripture.



Then you admit that there is a conflict.

Not a conflict with the Scripture, only a conflict with a "plain" reading of the English translation.

You said that no one has been able to prove evolution to be false. Can you prove evolution to be true? I am more than confident that you CAN'T, but it is not confidence such as that which you have in the idea that evolution is true, but a confidence derived from logic and reason. Strictly on logical grounds, the extent of the claims of evolution is extremely improbable. For one, it requires an extreme amount of time, which is impossible for any human to presence. But even on any of the other levels, I am confident that evolution fails.

Well, of course you can’t prove it true, any more than you can prove the theory of gravity true. Such theories are not proven true, they are either accepted as the most likely explanation or they are not. The theories which become almost universally accepted, like that of gravity and evolution, are those which have been tested and tested and tested for falsity without success. Those for which nearly every prediction it makes is true, etc.

The crucial point is that the mechanics of evolution (mutation, selection, etc) have all been conceded as true by the leading Creation Science groups. They all agree that these factors all come into play exactly like the scientists say they do. They only balk at this process actually creating change beyond a certain point, using a changeable and loose term "kind" as the boundary. They admit that speciation by means of evolution has taken place, but that there has been no evidence of this process continuing to the point where there is actually a different "kind" (although they refuse to clarify the term). The problem is that the process they agree takes place, if it proceeded for a long enough time, and with sufficient environmental pressures would create *whatever* degree of change was beneficial to the group. There is no reason why it would stop at some point short of this ambiguous "kind" limitation. The evolutionists say that, absent the proof of such a "brake" which would prevent further adaption, and given the evidence of such dramatic changes, there is no reason to believe that such a limitation exists. All the YEC’s can do is argue that we have no direct evidence of an observation that it actually happening. This is flawed reasoning, however, since we could never actually observe such a dramatic change in our lifetimes (or even a group of lifetimes). Further, we have evidence all around us that it *has* happened, even if we can not actually observe it happening real time.

 

[bevets]

Genesis 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
3 And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
8 And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
31 And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Exodus 20.11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

If you intended to convey that these were literal days, how would you have been more specific?

If you intended to convey a non literal day, what is the point of 'And there was evening, and there was morning'?

Can you give an example of a non literal day (yom) that is associated with a specific number (first, second, third)?

 

[TransformedByGrace]

Consider just this one fact against the Gap Theory:
If one day=1,000,000 (this is a great underestimation of the 4.6Billion years supposedly inserted inbetween these days)
If one day=1,000,000 years
each hour=41,666.67 years
each minute=694.44 years
each second=11.57 years

Adam lived and died in 1 minute, 20 seconds! And in this 1.3 minutes, he named all the animals, had his rib removed to form woman, Eve concieved children, all were born in about 0.2 seconds, got banned from Eden, made clothes, and died. This is alot of work in 1min 20seconds!

 

[Sinai]

But you are reading my point backwards. You are correct that if you believe in a young earth, you can not believe in evolution. BUT, if you believe in an old earth, that does not mean that you MUST believe in evolution and it also does not follow that a belief in an old earth LEADS to a belief in evolution. Yes, it opens the door since recognizing the true age of the earth means that there is now time for evolution to happen. But evolution must still stand on its own as a theory, and even if you accept an old earth, you would still need to be convinced by the evidence for evolution. The fact that most have does not create a causal connection between the two.

Actually, Vance, it may be debatable as to whether "recognizing the true age of the earth means that there is now time for evolution to happen"--at least to the extent that it means that there is time for all the diversity of life we have on our planet to be due to evolution as set out in the theory of evolution. Even when using the most favorable conditions and assumptions toward mutations occurring (at the fastest rate considered likely by biologists and without regressive development, etc.), the mathematical models I have seen show that it would take much longer than 4.5 billion years for life to develop as theorized in the theory of evolution....and the fossel records show that much less time than that was actually available.....

 

[Karaite]

Your argument comes from the assumption that evolution is fact, and that the earth could not be created in six days.

The Vance says:

I said "The idea that science insists on an old earth to accommodate evolutionary teaching is ignorant beyond belief." This is a true statement. You had said "Your argument comes from the assumption that evolution is fact, and that the earth could not be created in six days." It was not completely clear what you meant by "your argument", but I pointed out that if you were referring to the concept that science insists on an old earth in order to accommodate evolution in some way, then this would, indeed be incredibly ignorant. If you were referring to a different "argument" of mine, then I would gladly retract any connection between my statement (which is true) and you.

The question is, where in my statement, was ever a mention of science, or of anyone pushing some scientific theory, for the benefit of another? Is there any connection at all, between my statement, and Vance's respsonse? The answer is a resounding NO!

There is absolutely no evidence of what Vance is claiming that was in my statement. My statement was on the erroneous interpretation of YOM EHAD as "EPOCH", when the Scripture clearly makes it into a literal day. And the reason why so many try to make it seem as EPOCH is because of their "PRECONCEIVED" beliefs about EVOLUTION &/OR OLD EARTH theories.

Is that clear enough for you? Or should I say that, instead, I am the one who should be sorry for even speaking (writing) at all? Because every single word of mine can be misconstrued, changed into whatever the mind of the attacker makes it to be?

Or may we should just forget about it, can we? I don't know what is so hard about accepting a mistake. I admitted my mistake, of mixing you up with Lucaspa; I did not notice that there were two responders, and not just one. But that is not enough for you, because you continue claiming that I called you a liberal (knowing that you were not lucaspa) and that I said that you are not a bible-believing Christian (again, claiming that I did not have you confused with lucaspa).

What do you want me to do? I already told you I had you mixed up with the other person.

It is difficult to have an honest and intelligent conversation when people can't be honest, nor act intelligently; but instead, recur to call people ignorants, fools, and other derogatory terms. It did not bother me that you called me any of the things above, but it is perplexing to find that you won't admit that you did it without good reason.

Was it not you, Vance, who was complaining about YECs calling others non-christians, and other stuff like that, just because they are not YECs?

 

[leflings]

Vance:I should point out that the reason I like to present this source, and that of Reasons to Believe ministry is that they are ANTI-evolutionist, but still accept the reality of an old universe. While I disagree with much of the teaching as a result (since I believe in evolution to a great extent), it is important for YEC's to realize that you don't have to be opposed to an old earth just because you are opposed to evolution.

How old is the earth then? And what arguments do you have for believing the earth is more than 6000 years old.

 

[Alessandro]

I said it before, the Bible is clear. Take it for what it is, there is no need to complicate matters. From Creation account to today is around 6000 years.