An Origins poll

[SBG]

As I read Gen. 3:22 it would appear that this was not the case. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if they ate the fruit of the tree of life after the fall, because God could still take away the effect. As written, Gen. 3:22 implies the gift of life from the tree of life is permanent and cannot be taken away. Hence the preventive measures.

I am gonna start another thread on this. I don't want this thread to get off on this continuous tangent.

 

[Remus]

I hadn’t realized that there were so many OEC’s out there. Ya’ll are a quiet bunch. Drop in say hi.

Anyway, YEC here.

 

[theywhosowintears]

For the same reason those who do take Genesis literally say: to reveal the Father's love for us and to atone for our sins by his death and resurrection.

Why would not taking Genesis literally make us any less sinful and in need of redemption?

I dont undertand the TE idea of sin and death and how they came about... I would love for someone to explain that.

 

[Jatopian]

The sin caused spiritual death, the loss of eternal life, theywhosowintears.

 

[gluadys]

I dont undertand the TE idea of sin and death and how they came about... I would love for someone to explain that.

Here is an earlier discussion on the same question which may be helpful.

I've bumped the thread back to the first page for more discussion.

Here is a part of a post I made on that thread.

We can't pinpoint a date for the fall, because we can't pinpoint a date at which the physically human species became spiritually human.

But we can say it was whenever a spiritually aware human (such as Adam) lost spiritual connection with God through pride and disobedience.

Perhaps, the more important question is not when was the fall, but what is the fall and how does it affect your life. In a symbolic sense, each of us is Adam and each of us incorporates the fall into our own life by repeating in our own way the sin of Adam. Romans 5:14

snip


As for neanderthals and animals, we can't really say. I would not be surprised if neanderthals were conscious, but I couldn't say whether they were ensouled. Some animals clearly have a higher level of conscious awareness than others---especially those that are more nearly related to us. Chimps and gorillas who have been taught to use language symbols exhibit an amazing capacity for reflectiveness and emotion.

http://www.koko.org/world/art.html

 

[Dark Matter]

"the biggest reason why I hold to Old Earth creationism..."

It is consistence with:
1. The full revelation of God, both natural and special
2. All the observable facts
3. It has the most consistent explanatory power for understanding all the known facts about the universe, life on earth, and the Bible
3. As a young earth convert to Old Earth, I have studied virtually every Young Earth argument imaginable, and found them all **every single one** to be ignorant, void of understanding, and unsupported by any evidence (except of course their own blind and rote regurgitation of what they are told Genesis 1 *must* mean). This is coming from one who used to lead groups through young earth creation museums. I finally began reading the literature that all these Young Earth authors were citing (you know, checking source materials...something YEC's seem to never do) and found that virtually EVERY quote used was taken exhorbitantly out of context and made to mean something very different that the author intented. It was like going through the Jehovah's Witness' track on the Trinity. If you don't know any better it sounds good, until of course you actually read the source material and find that it is all grossly out of context and completely ignorant of the author's actual intent and words and historical meaning.

Finally, it astounds me as to the ubiquitous lack of knowledge that YECs or fundamentalists have regarding old earth views. They say things like, then you can't believe in original sin, or Adam and Eve--all of which, of course, is plain silly.

I don't mean to come across a little rough on the edges here. This topic and the complete lack of knowledge from which YECers speak on the subject has become a little raw on my emotions. The last person I spoke to (YEC) actually asked me for "the one verse that proves that the earth is old". God help the Christian who thinks that healthy theologies are formed by using "one verse". Then again, they have as their leader Kent Hovind, who I have recorded as saying the true interpretation of any scripture is how "a ten year old would understand it". While Jesus surely asked us to be as little Children in approaching the Kingdom of God, one would be very hard pressed to find any argument from all of Christian history (except of course the shameful dark ages of the Catholic church's reign) that believers are to reduce their intellect to that of a 10 year old to understand scripture. So Thomas Aquinas, arguably one of the greatest philosophers and theologians in man's history, should be rejected because he was more intelligent than a ten year old?

Shameful....the whole thing is just shameful.

Dark Matter

 

[knownbeforetime]

The Bible fits together so perfectly...

God created Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve sinned

God announces a plan to redeem them

Satan gets mad and tries to destroy their descendents to prevent the Messiah from coming.

The next nine generations become increasingly evil

God doesn't like it so He decides to start over with Noah

Some time later, Satan get Egypt to enslave the Hebrews in order to prevent the Messiah from coming.

God gets Moses on the case.

Satan tries over and over again to destroy the Hebrew race to prevent the Messiah from coming.

Two-thousand year ago, the Messiah DOES show up. "Satan got punk'd" and here we are today...

And then there's stuff about a rapture, tribulation, and millenial kingdom...

Evolution = Hopelessness

If it took God some six or twelve billion years to show up, then it will probably take him another six or twelve billion years to show up again...

If Adam didn't exist, then we are born without sin. If we are born without sin, then Jesus needn't have been born of a virgin. If Jesus needn't have been born of a virgin, then he probably WOULD have been considered as nothing more than a teacher. If we are born without sin, then there is the possibility that there are people who have remained perfect throughout their whole lives and wouldn't need a saviour.

With Evolution, death creates life (with natural selection). This is very anti-biblical. With Evolution, only the best deserve to live (look at Terri Schiavo). This provides a very solid basis for racism and hate. (Hitler thought that the Jews were holding humanity back and had them exterminated.)

With the Bible, life produces life. With the Bible, everyone is given a chance to live. With the Bible, there is no excuse for racism and hate. In fact, the Bible teaches love and mercy.

If evolution is true, then there is no God or at least one worth worshipping. I would spit in the face of a god who used evolution as a means of creation.

 

[Dark Matter]

The Bible fits together so perfectly...

God created Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve sinned

God announces a plan to redeem them

Satan gets mad and tries to destroy their descendents to prevent the Messiah from coming.

The next nine generations become increasingly evil

God doesn't like it so He decides to start over with Noah

Some time later, Satan get Egypt to enslave the Hebrews in order to prevent the Messiah from coming.

God gets Moses on the case.

Satan tries over and over again to destroy the Hebrew race to prevent the Messiah from coming.

Two-thousand year ago, the Messiah DOES show up. "Satan got punk'd" and here we are today...

And then there's stuff about a rapture, tribulation, and millenial kingdom...

Hello,
nothing you've written above necessitate a young earth. I accept the paraphrase you've written above.

Evolution = Hopelessness

Only for you, because of your myopic theology. Evolution does not equal atheism. Only naturalistic evolution does. It will do you very well to study the difference.

If it took God some six or twelve billion years to show up, then it will probably take him another six or twelve billion years to show up again...

It did not take God billion's of years to "show up". I encourage you to spend some time reading to understand how God has been continuously molding and shaping the universe. For you 12 billion years is a long time, for God, the difference between 15 billion years or ten thousand years is utterly insignificant. You must be careful when anthropomorphising God (giving Him human attributes).

If Adam didn't exist, then we are born without sin.

Who said Adam didn't exist? He did.

If we are born without sin, then Jesus needn't have been born of a virgin. If Jesus needn't have been born of a virgin, then he probably WOULD have been considered as nothing more than a teacher. If we are born without sin, then there is the possibility that there are people who have remained perfect throughout their whole lives and wouldn't need a saviour.

My sister, who said that we are born without sin? We are! You don't need a young earth to be born with sin!!

With Evolution, death creates life (with natural selection).

It does? I have studied this quite extensively and cannot figure out where you get this idea. Can you please give an example of how natural selection means death creates life.

This is very anti-biblical.

Chapter, verse please.

With Evolution, only the best deserve to live (look at Terri Schiavo).

This is found nowhere in evolution. The idea of "deserving" is not part of evolutionary thought. Perhaps you can quote from a book where this is taught? Have you ever read a book on evolution that wasn't by a young earth creationist?

Terry Schiavo has nothing to do with evolution, but I would be happy to discuss her situation with you in another thread!

This provides a very solid basis for racism and hate. (Hitler thought that the Jews were holding humanity back and had them exterminated.)

So does the apostle Paul's words that the "Jews are the enemy of the whole world." (look it up in your concordance if you don't know the verse). I don't believe you're about to throw out Christianity because people use Paul's words for racism and hate. Of course, to do such would be taking Paul and the Bible out of context to accomplish a personal agenda. Your application of Darwin's ideas to racism and hate is exactly the same situation. Just because radical idealogs took Darwin's ideas to justify their supremesist agendas does not make Darwin's idea equivalent to their agenda.

With the Bible, life produces life. With the Bible, everyone is given a chance to live. With the Bible, there is no excuse for racism and hate. In fact, the Bible teaches love and mercy.

Some New Testament quotations from St. Paul:
"All Cretans are liars." (prejudice and racist?)
"The Jews are the enemies of the whole world." (racist and hateful?)

Be aware that I think that neither of Paul's words above are racist or hateful, but I believe that your argument is simplistic.

If evolution is true, then there is no God or at least one worth worshipping. I would spit in the face of a god who used evolution as a means of creation.

My sister, you placed God in a box and just spit in his face. THAT, is blasphemy, and I pray God to forgive you. It is a much greater sin that you commit than those with whom you disagree.

Words are only as strong as the ideas they present.

Dark Matter

 

[knownbeforetime]

Only for you, because of your myopic theology. Evolution does not equal atheism. Only naturalistic evolution does. It will do you very well to study the difference.

The difference? God did it or God didn't do it. I say he used neither. I say he told Moses exactly how it happened. Myopic theology? I'm flattered.

It did not take God billion's of years to "show up". I encourage you to spend some time reading to understand how God has been continuously molding and shaping the universe. For you 12 billion years is a long time, for God, the difference between 15 billion years or ten thousand years is utterly insignificant. You must be careful when anthropomorphising God (giving Him human attributes).

Of course God doesn't think "billions of years" is a long time. Humans do. That's the problem. Who would worship a God that only makes a physical presence in his creation every 15 billion years? There are atheist waiting for God to show up personally. I say, "He'll be here shortly." TE's say, "Wait another 15 billion years."

Who said Adam didn't exist? He did.

My sister, who said that we are born without sin? We are! You don't need a young earth to be born with sin!!

A lot of TE's believe there was no real Adam.

It does? I have studied this quite extensively and cannot figure out where you get this idea. Can you please give an example of how natural selection means death creates life.

Sorry, death doesn't create life (in Natural Selection). Death provides for advancement. The weak must die so the strong can live.

This is found nowhere in evolution. The idea of "deserving" is not part of evolutionary thought. Perhaps you can quote from a book where this is taught? Have you ever read a book on evolution that wasn't by a young earth creationist?

Again, natural selection. Both evolution and Hitler agree that the weak cause problems and should be done away with. And I would be happy to discus Terri Schiavo!

So does the apostle Paul's words that the "Jews are the enemy of the whole world." (look it up in your concordance if you don't know the verse). I don't believe you're about to throw out Christianity because people use Paul's words for racism and hate. Of course, to do such would be taking Paul and the Bible out of context to accomplish a personal agenda. Your application of Darwin's ideas to racism and hate is exactly the same situation. Just because radical idealogs took Darwin's ideas to justify their supremesist agendas does not make Darwin's idea equivalent to their agenda.

I'm sorry I can't find that verse. I looked on Biblegateway.com and they're usually pretty good.

My sister, you placed God in a box and just spit in his face. THAT, is blasphemy, and I pray God to forgive you. It is a much greater sin that you commit than those with whom you disagree.

I won't take it back. It's only blasphemy if I'm wrong which I am not. God could have certainly used evolution but he didn't and he had His reasons. God has his way and Science is man's way. Science is fun to study and read about but it's nothing to build a theology on. Also, I don't think there is any sin in being wrong and there is no sin in discussion.

 

[PaladinValer]

The difference? God did it or God didn't do it. I say he used neither. I say he told Moses exactly how it happened. Myopic theology? I'm flattered.

Fallacy of False Dilema. There is a third possibility.

Of course God doesn't think "billions of years" is a long time. Humans do. That's the problem. Who would worship a God that only makes a physical presence in his creation every 15 billion years? There are atheist waiting for God to show up personally. I say, "He'll be here shortly." TE's say, "Wait another 15 billion years."

I would. Why? Because He is the Creator. Evolution was just how He did it, as science has discovered.

A lot of TE's believe there was no real Adam.

Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses. Just because a lot do doesn't mean it isn't compatable.

Sorry, death doesn't create life (in Natural Selection). Death provides for advancement. The weak must die so the strong can live.

Nope. That isn't biological evolution; it is social Darwinism. See below for the specific logical fallacy you've committed.

Again, natural selection. Both evolution and Hitler agree that the weak cause problems and should be done away with. And I would be happy to discus Terri Schiavo!

Fallacy of Equivocation. You are confusing two things that have no relation.

I'm sorry I can't find that verse. I looked on Biblegateway.com and they're usually pretty good.

Fallacy of Straw Man. You've missed the point of his post here. Regardless whether you can find it or not, it is the situation described which is the basis, not whether you can find the said verse.

I won't take it back. It's only blasphemy if I'm wrong which I am not.

Another logical fallacy; Non-Support.

God could have certainly used evolution but he didn't and he had His reasons. God has his way and Science is man's way. Science is fun to study and read about but it's nothing to build a theology on. Also, I don't think there is any sin in being wrong and there is no sin in discussion.

Same Non-Support.

 

[Matthew777]

I do not enjoy debating this issue because it really should be a non-issue.
Theistic evolution is an attempt to marry Darwinism with the Word of God.
However, one need only allow the text to speak for itself to notice the contradiction.
The philosophy of Darwinism is antithetical to traditional Christian theology.
One may find Creationism to be only a particular interpretation of the Bible but it is the traditional pre-Darwinian understanding of the text.

"Q. Who created the world, how and why?
A. God created the world in six days, from nothing, with only the power of His
Word, that He might make other beings happy also."
C A T E C H I S M

O F

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH

WRITTEN BY

Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/How/catechism.htm

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
​

 

[PaladinValer]

Six Days? In whose perspective? God's. And how long is that like to humans? 1,000 years. Significance of 1,000? It means "a great amount."

God spoke, and Bang!

I see nothing wrong with evolution in your Catechism. Nice try though.

 

[knownbeforetime]

Fallacy of False Dilema. There is a third possibility.

That third possibility is that God did it as described in the Bible

I would. Why? Because He is the Creator. Evolution was just how He did it, as science has discovered.

Why would God tell Moses one thing and then expect us to believe another?

Nope. That isn't biological evolution; it is social Darwinism.

Natural selection is defined as: "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." (Boldface mine) This is where Social Darwinism comes from.

Fallacy of Straw Man. You've missed the point of his post here. Regardless whether you can find it or not, it is the situation described which is the basis, not whether you can find the said verse.

I didn't miss the point. You were insinuating that the Bible can be used for hatred just as much as evolution. Since those verses don't exist, your point is false. Actually, "all cretans are liars" (Titus 1:12) IS in the Bible but it is in the form of a quote, the source of which is NOT in the Bible. Titus is telling them to STOP IT. Only if this is taken out of context... can we hate cretans (those who live on crete). Anyway...

Non-support? My evidence is the Bible, the unadulterated version, where God created the world in six 24 hour days and created man on the sixth day. He created Adam and Eve individually. Adam came from the dust of the ground and Eve from his rib. He created them individually just as he created me individually. He didn't just "guide things along", he was (and is) an active participant.

Six Days? In whose perspective? God's. And how long is that like to humans? 1,000 years. Significance of 1,000? It means "a great amount."

Are there days where God is at? Isn't heaven eternally lit? God created the 24 hour day when he created the heavens and the earth in day 1. The concept didn't exist before. BTW, Psalm 90:4 says a thousand years are LIKE a day to God. LIKE not IS. It's simple semantics. Besides, that would only give you 7,000 years. Now, if every day were like a billion years... then you might have something.

 

[CPman2004]

I am OEC because it fits most with the Bible and science.

 

[Dark Matter]

The difference? God did it or God didn't do it. I say he used neither. I say he told Moses exactly how it happened. Myopic theology? I'm flattered.

My sister,
when you say He told Moses exactly how it happened, do you consider that you may not be correctly representing what Moses wrote? Myopic is not flattery. You take it to mean conservative and unwaivering. It does not. I myself uphold the virtue of conservative and unwaivering theology. I am concerned for you that your theology is based upon your own (or your pastor's ) simplistic teaching, and that you have never studied beyond what you have been taught. Myopic in the perspective that you have formed very strong opinions with very little knowledge.

For example, if we apply your interpretation method to other scriptures, we will end up in very silly places.
1. Isaiah 11:12 "And will gather the dispersed of JudahFrom the four corners of the earth." Is the earth flat with corners? Yes or no?

Keep in mind when you answer this that for many, many years the Christian church believed the earth to be flat for verses such as Isaiah 11. You should thank God (before spitting in His face) that the church did not remain myopic in its theology in this regard. However, I must ask you, that since the church used to believe the earth was flat, why don't you? Have you allowed scientific evidence to sway your theology?

What about the idea of an expanding universe? Young Earth Creationists used to argue that the universe is not expanding...that is until the scientific evidence overwhelmed them. Now they quote scriptures like, Isaiah 42:5 to argue that the Bible taught an expanding universe the whole time. Which is it??

If you take a little time to study the history of the movements and theologies you hold to so strongly, you would find a very weak and constantly changing group. Had you lived fifty years ago, you likely would have said that you spit in the face of a God who expands the universe, rather than just brings it into existance. Of course, you would long ago have needed to repent of such ignorance and blasphemy. The same will be of much of what you argue.

Of course God doesn't think "billions of years" is a long time. Humans do. That's the problem. Who would worship a God that only makes a physical presence in his creation every 15 billion years? There are atheist waiting for God to show up personally. I say, "He'll be here shortly." TE's say, "Wait another 15 billion years."

God made a manifest physical presence at the appropriate time. It is not every 15 billion years. It is at the appointed times in human history. Please show me where TEs have written that you need to wait another 15 billion years for Christ's return!! You are making things up as you go along, and it is sinful. You are bearing false witness against the views of Theistic Evolutionists. You are continuously breaking the 9th commandment and misrepresenting views that you don't understand.

A lot of TE's believe there was no real Adam.

Yes, this is true. It is not, however, a necessary view. Has someone here said it, or are you simply misrepresenting the views of those with which you argue? There are still many young earth creationists who don't accept an expanding universe. Would I be righteous in accusing you of believe that simply because you also are YEC?

Sorry, death doesn't create life (in Natural Selection). Death provides for advancement. The weak must die so the strong can live.

Yes, yes, yes...more YEC literature and foolisheness. I've read all the YEC books. They say this garbage. I will need you to quote from the actual literature of those who discuss Natural Selection (again, have you ever read a non YEC book?). Again, you are speaking from ignorance and bearing false witness--for which you must repent according the the 9th commandment. If the weak must die so that the strong can live, then why is there a range of strong to weak animals on the planet? Using your ideology, the planet should now have a uniform race of equally strong creatures. The actual teaching of NS is simply that when two animals must fight over limited food source, or for mating rights, the stronger animals will win and the weaker will neither eat nor breed, and therefore will die. That is all. Do you disagree with this?

Again, natural selection. Both evolution and Hitler agree that the weak cause problems and should be done away with.

Natural Selection and evolution does not argue that the weak cause problems and should be done away with!! (9th commandmant again) The idea of "should" is a moral idea and is not found in the realm of natural selection. Hitler believed they "should" be done away with. However, he believed this based upon a great many more ideals that Darwin's theories! I don't find the character of Christ in so many purposeful misrepresentations of facts!!

And I would be happy to discus Terri Schiavo!

Make a new thread in the Christian side of the forums, make your point, and let me know where it is. You can PM me if you wish.

I'm sorry I can't find that verse. I looked on Biblegateway.com and they're usually pretty good.

Yes, I misquoted it from memory. It has been a long time since I referenced it. Let me make the argument for you. **I will state here clearly that I don't believe the argument, it is a false argument, but it has been used for racism and hate throughout the years.** I make it simply so that you will disagree with my representation of the Bible, and hopefully then so that you will understand how wrong it is for you to misrepresent others the way you have been doing.

It is Romans 11:28, "From the standpoint of the gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake" Now combine this with Philipians 3. Beginning in verse 1, Paul begins to argue against the Jews and their emphasis on physical things (like circumcision) is false confidence. He continues in this context until vs 18 where Paul states, "For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many [again in context speaking of the Jews] live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame."

So then, at least twice we are told that the Jews are our enemies, and that their end destruction...how now shall I think about them?
**Again, the scripture does not teach this, but I have layed out an argument that has been used by the Church for centuries!

You did not discuss Titus 1:12,13. "Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true."
Tell me how this is not racist!! Cretans are ALWAYS liars!! Really? Please defend this.

I won't take it back. It's only blasphemy if I'm wrong which I am not. God could have certainly used evolution but he didn't and he had His reasons. God has his way and Science is man's way. Science is fun to study and read about but it's nothing to build a theology on. Also, I don't think there is any sin in being wrong and there is no sin in discussion.

Romans 1:20 states that "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." God states that the natural revelation, which is best understood through scientific process, provides true revelation of God's nature. You are bound, and without excuse to that revelation. Yet you spit in the face of that revelation's God. This sister is blasphemy of the highest order. Your God has told you that your are accountable to the knowledge of nature and that this nature is a true representation of his power and divine nature. This nature unequivocally shows that he expanded the universe over from a moment of creative power and formed that universe to where a planet was developed which could foster the carbon based life he designed as man. If you spit in the face of the God who did this, then you spit in the face of Christ. Beware.

Dark Matter

 

[PaladinValer]

That third possibility is that God did it as described in the Bible

No; it is that He did it through evolution.

Why would God tell Moses one thing and then expect us to believe another?

God spoke and BANG, it happened.

I say something, someone writes. Did I cause that person to write? Yes.
God says for humanity to be, and evolution evolves humanity. Did God cause it? Yes.

Natural selection is defined as: "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." (Boldface mine) This is where Social Darwinism comes from.

No, it doesn't. Social Darwinism comes from the rampant popularity of psuedo-science during the centuries after the Renaissance which piked and chose what it liked from the actual theory of evolution.

I didn't miss the point. You were insinuating that the Bible can be used for hatred just as much as evolution. Since those verses don't exist, your point is false. Actually, "all cretans are liars" (Titus 1:12) IS in the Bible but it is in the form of a quote, the source of which is NOT in the Bible. Titus is telling them to STOP IT. Only if this is taken out of context... can we hate cretans (those who live on crete). Anyway...

Yes, you've missed the point, and you've continued the Straw Man Fallacy.

Non-support? My evidence is the Bible, the unadulterated version, where God created the world in six 24 hour days and created man on the sixth day.

And where did you get the idea? The same place? Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

He created Adam and Eve individually. Adam came from the dust of the ground and Eve from his rib. He created them individually just as he created me individually.

False according to Genesis 1. Which then is right then? Under a literalist perspective, you've just committed a Logical Fallacy, which therefore cannot possibly be therefore true.

He didn't just "guide things along", he was (and is) an active participant.

Based on what? Just because God didn't use the word "evolution?" Because the Bible doesn't directly say it was a process? These aren't good reasons...they are appeals to ignorance which are always illogical and always wrong.

Are there days where God is at?

Isn't heaven eternally lit?

Point?

God created the 24 hour day when he created the heavens and the earth in day 1.

Problem: Heaven is an ethereal place, the universe is entirely "worldly." Fallacy of False Dichotomy.

In the universe, a "day" is definied variously from body to body. On earth, it takes roughly 24 hours. On Venus, its day is actually a bit longer than its year. On Jupiter, a day is ~10 hours. The sun too has its own day.

However, the day on Earth is compared to the rising and setting of the sun. Since the sun wasn't around until a "later day," then, pray tell, how did said measurement come from? Obviously the days before the sun was born were determined not as how we understand a day.

The concept didn't exist before.

Exactly. Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance.

BTW, Psalm 90:4 says a thousand years are LIKE a day to God. LIKE not IS. It's simple semantics.

Like is an allusion. What is blue to me is like what ultraviolet to some insect. The insect observes differently like I do, through we are observing the same thing. To us, a 1,000 years is like a day to God. We are observing the same thing; the progression of time. To God however, a 1,000 years is like how we observe to be a "day."

Besides, that would only give you 7,000 years.

No; you'd get six. Creation was finished at the end of the 6th "Day." The seventh day is still going on.

Now, if every day were like a billion years... then you might have something.[

/QUOTE]

You are conviently ignoring the significance of numbers in Hebrew linguistics. This is entirely illogical. The very number 1,000 actually means something in Hebrew culture, just as numbers 12 and 7 do. When you read Hebrew writing, to ignore these significances is to entirely misread what is trying to be expressed; you will never come to the correct conclusion.

 

[Dark Matter]

I do not enjoy debating this issue because it really should be a non-issue.

Did you want a reply then? Why did you post?

DM

 

[Alarum]

Saying a thousand years is a bit like a million is for us.

"How badly did you lose"
"A million to zip"

"It would take a million years to do that"

"Yeah, in a million years."

In all of those phrases, a literal million is not meant.

 

[Matthew777]

Six Days? In whose perspective? God's. And how long is that like to humans? 1,000 years. Significance of 1,000? It means "a great amount."

God spoke, and Bang!

I see nothing wrong with evolution in your Catechism. Nice try though.

The passage that a day for God is a thousand years and a thousand years is day for God is best understood that God stands outside of time.

"But let us see what St. Ephraim says in his commentary on Genesis:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

​

These are still, of course, general principles; let us look now at several specific applications by St. Ephraim of these principles.

Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each. (Ibid.)"
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
​

 

[theywhosowintears]

Six Days? In whose perspective? God's. And how long is that like to humans? 1,000 years. Significance of 1,000? It means "a great amount."

God spoke, and Bang!

I see nothing wrong with evolution in your Catechism. Nice try though.

The problem with a the term day meaning anything other then a 24 hour day is that you would have to be inconsistent in interpretation of the original text.

The word for 'day' appears around 104 times in the bible those who read Genesis as creationists say that all 104 times it means a 24 hour day. Those who read Genesis from another point of view would be saying it means a 24 hour day in every case except Genesis 1. A point of view that is not quite scientific especially since there are far more accurate words that can specify longer lengths of time.

Anyhow
that probabyl won't convince you so its all good...

Peace