Creation: Six Days or not?

[KEPLER]

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.

Rather than answer that specifically, may I suggest reading the first paper by Dr. Kline? BTW, his views are also found (more thoroughly fleshed out) in this book, available from Amazon.

Here's a snippet from a review of the book:

Of the three arguments presented, the strongest by far is the framework view. Irons and Kline have put together an impressive work of exegesis and theological erudition that places the biblical text in its proper place without snubbing a literal treatment of the text or sidelining the concerns of science. On the other hand, Duncan and Hall [the YECists in the debate] do not present a unified and exegetically convincing argument. Too much rests upon the lexical use of a single word divorced from a broader context. Ross and Archer [the OECists in the debate] similarly offer a minimal amount of exegetical work and only that for which accommodates their pre-commitment to make science fit the textual data.

Kepler

 

[shamsweedo]

I think that God did create it all in six days, however, I believe that his timing is much different than ours. A day in the eyes of the Lord is much different than a day on our calendar.

 

[Breetai]

...we have archaeological evidence of human culture older than that (6000 years)...

Where? How is it determined to be so old?

Are you going to tell me that places like Catel Hayuk, or Egyptian matabas, have been proven to be older then that?

Even still, I can appeal to the Sumarian or LXX texts.

 

[Breetai]

Rather than answer that specifically, may I suggest reading the first paper by Dr. Kline? BTW, his views are also found (more thoroughly fleshed out) in this book, available from Amazon.

Here's a snippet from a review of the book:


Kepler

Give me a couple of days.

I'm actually curious as to where you stand on the flood.

 

[KEPLER]

Give me a couple of days.

I'm actually curious as to where you stand on the flood.

Same place as I "stand" on Creation: I believe what the Bible (actually!) says.

K

 

[ThreeAM]

Same place as I "stand" on Creation: I believe what the Bible (actually!) says.

K

Good coment on post 200 then.

 

[KEPLER]

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 5:6 But there went up a mist from the earth [fog], and watered the whole face of the ground.

Oh, dear. You really ought to read those papers....you might learn something about how to read the Bible correctly.

K

 

[ThreeAM]

Oh, dear. You really ought to read those papers....you might learn something about how to read the Bible correctly.

K

LOL Why not cut the arrogant sacasism and just explain what the proper exogesis of the verse are then? Too tough for you??

Prov 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Prov 16:13 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[KEPLER]

LOL Why not cut the arrogant sacasism and just explain what the proper exogesis of the verse are then? Too tough for you??

Because it has much more to do than with just one or two verses.

Prov 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Prov 16:13 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

My "arrogant sarcasm" displays itself whenever some person asserts that Jesus is not sufficient for salvation. But I wouldn't call it "arrogant sarcasm" as much as I would call it "righteous anger", or even more to the point: a "sharp rebuke", as Paul explicitly told Titus (1:13) to do to anyone who added to the Gospel.

Ken Ham (whom you were quoting a few posts back) says explicitly that ANYONE who does NOT believe in a "literal 6 24 hour lunar cycle day" is ipso facto not a believer. He has added his own law to the Gospel, therby subjugating the Cross of Christ.

Therefore, Ken Ham is a heretic (in addition to being an uneducated nut-job), and I must assume that anyone quoting him positively is also a heretic.

Kepler

 

[The thinker]

Wow thats interesting... I just voted... it is split exactly in half, 41 votes for each option... interesting

 

[ThreeAM]

Because it has much more to do than with just one or two verses.



My "arrogant sarcasm" displays itself whenever some person asserts that Jesus is not sufficient for salvation. But I wouldn't call it "arrogant sarcasm" as much as I would call it "righteous anger", or even more to the point: a "sharp rebuke", as Paul explicitly told Titus to do to anyone who added to the Gospel.

Ken Ham (whom you were quoting a few posts back) says explicitly that ANYONE who does believe in a "literal 6 24 hour lunar cycle day" is not a believer. He has added his own law to the Gospel, therby subjugating the Cross of Christ.

Therefore, Ken Ham is a heretic (in addition to being an uneducated nut-job), and I must assume that anyone quoting him positively is also a heretic.

Kepler

Well I have no idea who Ken Ham is but I am a scientist and hold a doctorate degree and I never said anything that asserts Jesus is not sufficient for Salvation. You know what happens when you ASSUME. Personally if you jumped to all those wild conclusions based on my few post here it makes you appear as a nut-job.

Anyway I would still like to discuss with you why you think Gen 2:5-6 should be interpreted different than there was no rain but a mist did come up from the earth to water things.

I have read these verses in several versions and have examined the meanings of the Hebrew words used in them and my opinion of them remains unchanged.

So if you have an alternative exegesis of them...let is rip...let's hear it...or just be quite if you can't back up your wild interpretation.

 

[Joykins]

Where? How is it determined to be so old?

Are you going to tell me that places like Catel Hayuk, or Egyptian matabas, have been proven to be older then that?

Even still, I can appeal to the Sumarian or LXX texts.

There is evidence of human habitation in the Americas well in advance of 6000 BC and in Australia about 30,000 years ago. Each of which shows considerable distance from the middle east.

 

[ThreeAM]

There is evidence of human habitation in the Americas well in advance of 6000 BC and in Australia about 30,000 years ago. Each of which shows considerable distance from the middle east.

What method was used to date these human habitations?

 

[KEPLER]

Well I have no idea who Ken Ham is but I am a scientist and hold a doctorate degree and I never said anything that asserts Jesus is not sufficient for Salvation. You know what happens when you ASSUME. Personally if you jumped to all those wild conclusions based on my few post here it makes you appear as a nut-job.

Anyway I would still like to discuss with you why you think Gen 2:5-6 should be interpreted different than there was no rain but a mist did come up from the earth to water things.

I have read these verses in several versions and have examined the meanings of the Hebrew words used in them and my opinion of them remains unchanged.

So if you have an alternative exegesis of them...let is rip...let's hear it...or just be quite if you can't back up your wild interpretation.

This post sounded like it was lifted off of "Answers in Genesis" which is Ken Ham's website (or at least, he's a prominent person on that website...) If I was mistaken, well then, I apologize.

As for my "wild interpretation" ...well, it's been the only interpretation for 2000 years, until the Ken Ham/Henry Morris/Duane Gish troglodytes began roaming the earth. And I already provided the reference. "Take, and read," as the Holy Spirit told St. Augustine.

And since we're apparently trading credentials, my PhD. is in History of Science (with special emphasis on issues of Natural Philosophy and Theology, ca. 1600-1800)(which should explain my screen name! )

Kepler

 

[ThreeAM]

This post sounded like it was lifted off of "Answers in Genesis" which is Ken Ham's website (or at least, he's a prominent person on that website...) If I was mistaken, well then, I apologize.

As for my "wild interpretation" ...well, it's been the only interpretation for 2000 years, until the Ken Ham/Henry Morris/Duane Gish troglodytes began roaming the earth. And I already provided the reference. "Take, and read," as the Holy Spirit told St. Augustine.

And since we're apparently trading credentials, my PhD. is in History of Science (with special emphasis on issues of Natural Philosophy and Theology, ca. 1600-1800)(which should explain my scrren name! )

Kepler

I think it is your responsiblity to post the reasons Gen 2 :5-6 should not be read as written. I could give you a number of websites that take an opposite exegesis of these verses from you. I have to conclud that you can not express your understandings of these verses enough to win an full examination of the truth.

 

[Joykins]

What method was used to date these human habitations?

Radiocarbon. I'm pretty sure.

 

[chaoschristian]

There's wasn't an option for my view: creation hasn't stopped and it's not complete. God is still active in His Creation, and He is still in the act of creating.

 

[KEPLER]

I think it is your responsiblity to post the reasons Gen 2 :5-6 should not be read as written. I could give you a number of websites that take an opposite exegesis of these verses from you. I have to conclud that you can not express your understandings of these verses enough to win an full examination of the truth.

A number of websites?! "Ooooo! I'm shaking in my bright yellow shirt!"

Well that's pretty silly for you to conclude that...but fine. Give me a few minutes.

K

 

[ThreeAM]

Radiocarbon. I'm pretty sure.

Radio carbon has been proven to be pretty unreliable.

It depends on a steady release of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. That can be theorized but not proven. In fact since the industrial revolution and with increased burning of organic fuels much more Carbon 14 is being release into the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution. Scientist have to ESTIMATE the amount of Carbon 14 before the industrial revolution no really knows if that estimation is correct.

I have seen carbon 14 dating on a castel in scotland the wood used in the castel was dated at 5,000-6,000 years yet the castel is known to be about 600 years old. Also I have seen the same type results on seal skins that were known to be about 300 years old but were carbon 14 dated much older.

So don't put to much confidence in Carbon 14 datting.

 

[KEPLER]

I have seen carbon 14 dating on a castel in scotland the wood used in the castel was dated at 5,000-6,000 years yet the castel is known to be about 600 years old. Also I have seen the same type results on seal skins that were known to be about 300 years old but were carbon 14 dated much older.

Uh, there is QUITE OBVIOUSLY no contradiction here.

The wood didn't begin aging when the castle was built, did it. So, what if the people who built the castle used "old growth" wood??? Problem solved.

Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

Kepler