Creation: Six Days or not?

Breetai · Jan 30, 2006

Sorry, I missed part of your post Kelper:

I never said anything about how long homo sapiens has been around. I deliberately did not.

Nope, but others do. I just wanted to get the point across.

I never said death entered the world before sin, did I?

Nope, but others do. It's often in the form of "spiritual death", which is also relevent of course, but it goes along with physical death.

Obviously, I haven't read though Kline's papers yet, but I did breeze though them and looked at what she cited. I noticed that she didn't deal with the Hebrew yom at all. Why not? Shouldn't defining it be one of the main points on how the beginning of Genesis is to be understood?

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

Breetai said:
Obviously, I haven't read though Kline's papers yet, but I did breeze though them and looked at what she cited. I noticed that she didn't deal with the Hebrew yom at all. Why not? Shouldn't defining it be a main point on how the beginning of Genesis is to be understood?

Actually, Meredith Kline is a "he".
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/bios/kline.php

Heh. My wife and I are having our first child, and my only ground-rule about choosing a name is, "No androgynous names". No Tracy, Jamie, Kelly, Terry, or (of course!) Pat.

K

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

Breetai said:
I did breeze though them and looked at what she cited. I noticed that she didn't deal with the Hebrew yom at all. Why not? Shouldn't defining it be one of the main points on how the beginning of Genesis is to be understood?

Absolutely not.. "Yom" is a red herring.

It is first the context of the passage that defines how a word is used, and if the context does not supply it, then only after that do you look for the word in other biblical contexts to see if it fits. Basic exegesis.

K

Breetai · Jan 30, 2006

Haha, "it's Pat".

My middle name is Ashley.

"Yom" is a red herring.

It's a good thing I like fish then. B)

It is first the context of the passage that defines how a word is used, and if the context does not supply it, then only after that do you look for the word in other biblical contexts to see if it fits. Basic exegesis.

In that case, it still means a literal day with morning and night. That's how I see it in context. Also, low and behold, just in case you miss the context, it means the same thing thoughout the rest of the OT. Luther and Kepler agree with me too.

zaire · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER said:
Ah, yes, the usual Ken "If you don't believe in six literal 24-hour days of creation, then you're going to HELL" Ham claptrap. Rubbish fit for small minds.

Tell me, bytheway, why is there no "evening and morning" on the SEVENTH day??? (Hint: There is GREAT theological significance to the absence!!!)

Kepler

Ken who?

The point still stands that when the word yom is used in association with a number or the words 'evening' or 'morning' it always refers to an ordinary day.

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

bytheway said:
Ken who?

Erm, Ken the guy that you quoted....that Ken.

The point still stands that when the word yom when associated with a number or the words ‘evening’ or ‘morning always refers to an ordinary day.

The point does NOT stand. End of discussion.

K

zaire · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

Breetai said:
Haha, "it's Pat".

My middle name is Ashley.

Breetai said:
In that case, it still means a literal day with morning and night. That's how I see it in context. Also, low and behold, just in case you miss the context, it means the same thing thoughout the rest of the OT. Luther and Kepler agree with me too.

How can it mean a "literal day" with "morning and night" when there was no sun and no moon until the 4th day?

And mind you, I have no problem with there being "another" source of light for the first three "days" (just as jesus is the source of light at the end of Revelation), but as soon as we say that, then the "morning and evening" of the first three days cannot mean what we usually understand as "morning and evening". (Which, by the way, is why bytheway's "yom" yammering is completely off.) There are plenty of words in the bible that mean something different depending on their immediate context. Uneducated boneheads like Ken Ham
(and his dispensationalist friends) don't understand this, which is why they invent all these heinous, blasphemous and anti-Christian theologies.

K

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

bytheway said:
Why because the 'infalliable' pope says it was a longer period of time?

The catholic church whole intigraty lie's on the point.

Erm...why are you bringing up Roman Catholicism and the Pope? Sounds like you're trying to dodge the issue by bringing something else up....???

K

zaire · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER said:
Erm...why are you bringing up Roman Catholicism and the Pope? Sounds like you're trying to dodge the issue by bringing something else up....???

K

That was the first time i said it!

Do any RC's believe in 6 literal days?

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

bytheway said:
That was the first time i said it!

Do any RC's believe in 6 literal days?

Well, personally I don't know the precise percentage breakdown, but some do, some don't. There is one RC named Robert Sungenis who believes in it SOOO literally that he is a geocentrist, like NarrowPathPilgrim.

K

Forest · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER said:
How can it mean a "literal day" with "morning and night" when there was no sun and no moon until the 4th day?

Nobody seems to be able to answer this.

Joykins · Jan 30, 2006

Breetai said:
Of course physical evidence is reliable. If you have actual physical evidence, then you can't deny that it doesn't exist! That's a redundant statement.

That's redundant as well.

I'm not even sure why I replied to this.

Maybe I should say that the current understanding of the physical evidence is not a misinterpretation, although we allow for the great likelihood that both the evidence and our understanding of it is incomplete.

IOW, if the evidence suggests an age older than 6000 years (and we have archaeological evidence of human culture older than that), we do not start with the assumption that 6000 years ago is a cutoff.

zaire · Jan 30, 2006

Forest said:
Nobody seems to be able to answer this.

Genesis

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

jckstraw72 · Jan 30, 2006

How can it mean a "literal day" with "morning and night" when there was no sun and no moon until the 4th day?

Click to expand...

just bc the method of measuring time in days wasnt in place yet, doesnt mean days werent in place yet.

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

jckstraw72 said:
just bc the method of measuring time in days wasnt in place yet, doesnt mean days werent in place yet.

I'm willing to concede that as a possiblity, but only as a possibility. The fact that something can be interpreted in such a way, however, does not mean that it must be interpreted thus. There are other (equally -- if not more --plausible) ways to interpret. Case in point are the Meredith Kline papers I cited earlier.

K

ThreeAM · Jan 30, 2006

Joykins said:
Maybe I should say that the current understanding of the physical evidence is not a misinterpretation, although we allow for the great likelihood that both the evidence and our understanding of it is incomplete.

IOW, if the evidence suggests an age older than 6000 years (and we have archaeological evidence of human culture older than that), we do not start with the assumption that 6000 years ago is a cutoff.

There is scriptural evidence that originally the earth was surounded by a vapor barrier. That would cause a greehouse like enviornment. It would explain the coal deposites that are found in Antartica also. A large vapor barrier would also shield the earth from cosmic radation. { We wouldn't want Adam and Eve getting sun burned would we. } More importantly if the earth was shielded from cosmic radiation it would slow or eliminate totally the formation of Carbon 14. Carbon 14 is created when cosmic radation strike nitrogen in the atmosphere. So if this protective vapor barrier fell in the form of a flood then the earth would not be protected from cosmic radation like it is not protected today.

That means that anything that lived and died before the flood would have a much smaller than expected amount of Carbon 14 and would appear much older than it really is. Anything that lived and died after the flood would appear about its actual age. So don't trust carbon 14 dating as a fact because it relies on a steady release of Carbon 14 to be correct and that may not have been the case.

gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [atmosphere] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

[Water above the atmosphere]

8 And God called the firmament Heaven [Atmosphere]. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

KEPLER · Jan 30, 2006

ThreeAM said:
There is scriptural evidence that originally the earth was surounded by a vapor barrier. That would cause a greehouse like enviornment. It would explain the coal deposites that are found in Antartica also. A large vapor barrier would also shield the earth from cosmic radation. { We wouldn't want Adam and Eve getting sun burned would we. } More importantly if the earth was shielded from cosmic radiation it would slow or eliminate totally the formation of Carbon 14. Carbon 14 is created when cosmic radation strike nitrogen in the atmosphere. So if this protective vapor barrier fell in the form of a flood then the earth would not be protected from cosmic radation like it is not protected today.

That means that anything that lived and died before the flood would have a much smaller than expected amount of Carbon 14 and would appear much older than it really is. Anything that lived and died after the flood would appear about its actual age. So don't trust carbon 14 dating as a fact because it relies on a steady release of Carbon 14 to be correct and that may not have been the case.

gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [atmosphere] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

[Water above the atmosphere]

8 And God called the firmament Heaven [Atmosphere]. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

More Ken Ham idiotic poppycock. The ABSOLUTELY CLEAR evidence from Genesis 2 is that as soon as plants appeared, then rain soon followed.

Go to post #176, and download the 2 papers by the Rev. Dr. Mark Futato. He DESTROYS that ignorant silliness.

K

Breetai · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER said:
How can it mean a "literal day" with "morning and night" when there was no sun and no moon until the 4th day?

And mind you, I have no problem with there being "another" source of light for the first three "days" (just as jesus is the source of light at the end of Revelation), but as soon as we say that, then the "morning and evening" of the first three days cannot mean what we usually understand as "morning and evening". (Which, by the way, is why bytheway's "yom" yammering is completely off.) There are plenty of words in the bible that mean something different depending on their immediate context. Uneducated boneheads like Ken Ham
(and his dispensationalist friends) don't understand this, which is why they invent all these heinous, blasphemous and anti-Christian theologies.

K

Well then, you've still got days 4, 5 and 6 that would for sure be literal days. Why wouldn't we be consistant with the first three?

What about in Exodus 20:11, where it says "for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..."? Doesn't this allude to there being six literal days? How would've the people that Moses, including Moses himself, have understood this? I think it's much more likely that they would've assumed that this was actually six days.

I'm not sure where you stand on the "evolution" bit, but this means that all living creatures were created no more than two days before Adam. What about the flood? Obviously, if we're only disagreeing on the time period of the first three days of creation, then we don't have much of a contention with either other.

ThreeAM · Jan 30, 2006

KEPLER said:
More Ken Ham idiotic poppycock. The ABSOLUTELY CLEAR evidence from Genesis 2 is that as soon as plants appeared, then rain soon followed.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth [fog], and watered the whole face of the ground.

Creation: Six Days or not?

Did God create the Universe in six days?

Yes, I believe it.

No, though God could have done it I don't believe he did.

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Crux sola est nostra theologia

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Well-Known Member

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Well-Known Member

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Well-Known Member

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Senior Veteran

free Crazy Liz!

Well-Known Member

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Well-Known Member

Crux sola est nostra theologia

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency