Creation: Six Days or not?

[Sabra]

Hey Quijote!

Do you believe it took God six days to make the universe or not?

God said it and according to 2 Timothy 3:16 it is true so I believe it! Even if I didn't have a lot of proof for what I believe, I trust Almighty God who was there and who doesn't lie and who does know everything over sinful limited and fallible men who were not there and who don't know everything.

If we cut to the chase this is at the core of the debate between Christians:

Who am I going to trust? The word of man or the Word of God who doesn't lie and who is omniscient?

Many Christian theistic evolutionists today are in effect saying trust man over God. They are saying that because "science" has "disproven" the Bible, we don't have to believe it. In a sense, it's just like what the snake said in the Garden of Eden - "Did God really mean .....". I just can't help but think how the unbelievers are viewing this. Here, we have fallible humans saying that you can basically interpret the Bible (which we claim is the authoritive Word of God) anyway you want to! It shows the unbelievers that we don't even take our own holy book too seriously and that we don't view it as the authoritive Word of God.

But enough of that for now, some have claimed that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are not our days but perhaps days to God and so on. Besides the fact that God is outside of time (1 Peter 3:8), He is "writing" a historical account of how the universe (specifically Earth) was created to man. So, why would God use time dimensions that had no relation to man when His message is to man? God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is of the devil, and deceit is one of his primary tactics.

If you think about it, it is similar in effect to being in another country and not changing your watch to be in line with their time. For example, if I travel half way around the world to a place like Europe, for example, and I forget to fix my watch to the GMT of that location, then if I am told that I need to catch a train at 2:00 PM of "X" day, then I'll be there a lot earlier (as Australia is GMT + 10:00).

See what I mean? Why would I tell the time from a different frame of reference that I cannot relate to if I am in a particlar location that doesn't relate to my old frame of reference? I hope that it made sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but I am struggling to put it into words. Maybe I'm hungry and need something to eat.

Similarly, why would God say that He created in six days to man if the six days were not something that man could relate to? Isn't that kind of pointless and doesn't it defeat the purpose of God telling us just how long He created? Just how stupid do you think God really is? Why does He not tell the truth - exactly how many "days" or years He took? Just to further make sure that we don't make God out to be a lying fool He talks about the "evening passing and morning coming" which is what we see today! That phrase can mean only that! It doesn't take millions of years for this to happen, if so then no life would have been able to survive (or if it did then it would have been really different then what we see today and we are back at square one again, i.e. how did life as we see it come about?).

I personally think that many of the theistic evolutionistic arguments are quite absurd and make God out to be among the biggest sadistic retards in or outside the universe.

I just needed to say that...

 

[Lynn73]

God would indeed by a "sadistic retard" if he used evolution to do everything. Evolution is sloppy, brings death, and takes gazillions of years. My God got it right the first time and He did it just as He said in Genesis. In six days and He rested on the seventh. If people don't know what evening and morning mean, they have a problem.

 

[ThreeAM]

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

Oak trees don't live to be 5000-6000 years old. And seals don't live for thousands of years either.

 

[KEPLER]

Oak trees don't live to be 5000-6000 years old. And seals don't live for thousands of years either.

Erm...why does the oak tree have to be living? It have sprouted 4000-5000 years, lived for 800-1000 years, and then died. And then harvested around the time that the Castle was built...

As for seal skins, doesn't sodium have pretty drastic effects on carbon? Not saying I know, just thinking that Na is a corrsive, so....?

K

 

[chaoschristian]

Hey Quijote!



God said it and according to 2 Timothy 3:16 it is true so I believe it! Even if I didn't have a lot of proof for what I believe, I trust Almighty God who was there and who doesn't lie and who does know everything over sinful limited and fallible men who were not there and who don't know everything.

If we cut to the chase this is at the core of the debate between Christians:

Who am I going to trust? The word of man or the Word of God who doesn't lie and who is omniscient?

Many Christian theistic evolutionists today are in effect saying trust man over God. They are saying that because "science" has "disproven" the Bible, we don't have to believe it. In a sense, it's just like what the snake said in the Garden of Eden - "Did God really mean .....". I just can't help but think how the unbelievers are viewing this. Here, we have fallible humans saying that you can basically interpret the Bible (which we claim is the authoritive Word of God) anyway you want to! It shows the unbelievers that we don't even take our own holy book too seriously and that we don't view it as the authoritive Word of God.

But enough of that for now, some have claimed that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are not our days but perhaps days to God and so on. Besides the fact that God is outside of time (1 Peter 3:8), He is "writing" a historical account of how the universe (specifically Earth) was created to man. So, why would God use time dimensions that had no relation to man when His message is to man? God is not the author of confusion. Confusion is of the devil, and deceit is one of his primary tactics.

If you think about it, it is similar in effect to being in another country and not changing your watch to be in line with their time. For example, if I travel half way around the world to a place like Europe, for example, and I forget to fix my watch to the GMT of that location, then if I am told that I need to catch a train at 2:00 PM of "X" day, then I'll be there a lot earlier (as Australia is GMT + 10:00).

See what I mean? Why would I tell the time from a different frame of reference that I cannot relate to if I am in a particlar location that doesn't relate to my old frame of reference? I hope that it made sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but I am struggling to put it into words. Maybe I'm hungry and need something to eat.

Similarly, why would God say that He created in six days to man if the six days were not something that man could relate to? Isn't that kind of pointless and doesn't it defeat the purpose of God telling us just how long He created? Just how stupid do you think God really is? Why does He not tell the truth - exactly how many "days" or years He took? Just to further make sure that we don't make God out to be a lying fool He talks about the "evening passing and morning coming" which is what we see today! That phrase can mean only that! It doesn't take millions of years for this to happen, if so then no life would have been able to survive (or if it did then it would have been really different then what we see today and we are back at square one again, i.e. how did life as we see it come about?).

I personally think that many of the theistic evolutionistic arguments are quite absurd and make God out to be among the biggest sadistic retards in or outside the universe.

I just needed to say that...

I invite you to the Origins Theology forum where we can dialogue about this in a place where it is most relevant to the topic of the particular forum.

I look forward to seeing you there.

[edit]It has been pointed out to me that my choice in headers comes across as an insult to Sabra. Let me assure you that this is completely unintended, and is rather an unfortunate result of way the header is placed in relation to the quote of Sabra's post. In other words, it looks as if I'm calling his post a joke. Let me state quite clearly that this is not my intent. If there was a way for me to edit the header I would, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that right now. Again, my apologies for the apparent unseemlyness of this. [edit]

 

[ThreeAM]

Erm...why does the oak tree have to be living? It have sprouted 4000-5000 years, lived for 800-1000 years, and then died. And then harvested around the time that the Castle was built...

As for seal skins, doesn't sodium have pretty drastic effects on carbon? Not saying I know, just thinking that Na is a corrsive, so....?

K

England is a pretty moist country. The trees would decay in 5000 years. Play again and play often.

They also have Carbon 14 dated egyptian artifacts of known age and have been pitifuly inacurate. One of the items was wood for a short lived thorn tree for King Tuts tomb.

 

[Breetai]

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.

 

[dcyates]

I haven't even begun to try reading all the posted messages on this thread, so if I'm repeating what has already been asserted by someone else, please forgive me the redundancy.
The creation account of Genesis 1&2 is not intended to provide us with an account of what happened, "In the beginning," either historically or scientifically. Rather, its purpose is theological in intent. It's supposed to communicate who God is, who we are in relation to both God and the rest of creation, what is our divinely-appointed purpose within creation, even how we are to spend our time That is, we are to work six days and rest on the seventh. Given that, it only stands to reason that the six days enumerated in Genesis 1 are indeed six 24hr days. However, although Genesis 1 informs us that YHWH is the Creator God, it does not necessarily indicate that creation was accomplished within a six day period. That's simply not what the text is meant to do.

 

[ThreeAM]

Erm...why does the oak tree have to be living? It have sprouted 4000-5000 years, lived for 800-1000 years, and then died. And then harvested around the time that the Castle was built...

As for seal skins, doesn't sodium have pretty drastic effects on carbon? Not saying I know, just thinking that Na is a corrsive, so....?

K

Na does not remove carbon 14 molecules.

 

[Breetai]

I haven't even begun to try reading all the posted messages on this thread, so if I'm repeating what has already been asserted by someone else, please forgive me the redundancy.
The creation account of Genesis 1&2 is not intended to provide us with an account of what happened, "In the beginning," either historically or scientifically. Rather, its purpose is theological in intent. It's supposed to communicate who God is, who we are in relation to both God and the rest of creation, what is our divinely-appointed purpose within creation, even how we are to spend our time That is, we are to work six days and rest on the seventh. Given that, it only stands to reason that the six days enumerated in Genesis 1 are indeed six 24hr days. However, although Genesis 1 informs us that YHWH is the Creator God, it does not necessarily indicate that creation was accomplished within a six day period. That's simply not what the text is meant to do.

I mostly agree with you. Since you haven't read the last few pages, this is what Dr. Luther had to say on the subject:
"...as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience".

-Luther's Works, Vol. 22, p. 28.

 

[ThreeAM]

This post is a response to the wild and wholly unbiblical notion that there was no rain that fell upon the earth until after the Noahic flood.

Key verses
Genesis 2:5-7

The proposition that there was no rain until Noah’s flood is based on a particular need of Young-Earth Creationists (hereafter, YECists). The need is to supply a reason for the apparent age of the earth. By positing that the earth was enveloped in a “canopy of mist”, they can argue that any radiocarbon testing would be valid only after the time of Noah’s flood, because the rain which caused Noah’s flood (which is postulated to have been the condensation of the alleged “vapor canopy&#8221 would have shielded the earth from the sun’s radiation, thereby making useless any attempt at radiocarbon dating.

On it’s face, of course, this theory is preposterous. The amount of vapor required to create such a world-wide deluge would have suffocated anything living in it. Even the great state of North Carolina would seem thousands of times more arid compared to such conditions. Hence, we can dismiss this silly idea out nothing more than “common sense”. However, let us play along and examine the idea in light of Scripture.

This is the text which we shall examine: Genesis 2:5-7



.


First of all, the clear implication of Gen 2:5 is that there was no “wild vegetation” and also no “cultivated vegetation” BECAUSE

1. there had as of yet been no rain, and
2. there had been no man to do the cultivating

What does God do with this two-fold problem? He provides two solutions: rain (verse 6) and a man (verse 7).

Verse 6 describes what we know as evaporation (mist rose up to form clouds) and condensation (watered the face of the ground).

But! (but… but… but… but… but&#8230 the proponents of the "vapor theory" will argue something like this.

1. The Bible has a word for “rain” and it’s not used here.
2. Mist doesn’t evaporate from the earth, it evaporates from the ocean.
3. They invariably want to make a connection between the waters of vs. 6 and the river mentioned in vs. 10. But there is no necessary or compelling reason to do this.

As for number (1), we can easily dismiss this, since Scripture often has multiple words for the same thing or phenomenon. The easiest example of this, of course, are the various names for God which almost all get translated as simply, “God”.

We can also take the Hebrew words qahal, ‘edah, mow’ed, and miqra’, which are all variously translated as “assembly”, “congregation”, “multitude” or “convocation”. Let’s look just at “assembly”.

In the five books of Moses alone, there are three words that get translated into English as “assembly”: qahal (10 times), ‘edah (6 times), and atsarah (3 times). So we can plainly see that Hebrew (just like any other language) can have multiple words which describe the same thing, or (more likely) which describe the same thing in a given set of circumstances.

Let us look at “rain”: in the five books of Moses there are 5 different words for “rain”: matar (in two forms) (10 times), geshem (used 3 times), sa’yir (once), yow’reh (once), and malqowsh (once).

Consequently, no one can argue that "‘ed" might not also be rain, just because Hebrew already has a word for rain. Hebrew has at least 5 words for rain.

Well this all boils down to is ed a vapor/mist/fog or a rain.

Before we begin I must comment that I have been through many violent Texas rain storms. I have seen rain come down like cats and dogs [A Texas phrase] I have seen rain fly sideways in a sprited storm. With the possible exception of that tornado I was once in I have NEVER seen rain fall upward. Although I did see a dog fly in that twister so I guess maybe it was raining upward. To be honest I was so scared I don't really remember.

Now let's look at Gen 2:6

But there went up.....a mist ....from..... the earth,.... and watered.... the whole face... of the ground.


But there went up


1) to go up, ascend, climb
a) (Qal)
1) to go up, ascend
2) to meet, visit, follow, depart, withdraw, retreat
3) to go up, come up (of animals)
4) to spring up, grow, shoot forth (of vegetation)
5) to go up, go up over, rise (of natural phenomenon)
6) to come up (before God)
7) to go up, go up over, extend (of boundary)
8) to excel, be superior to

a mist
1) mist


from



1) from, out of, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not, more than
a) from (expressing separation), off, on the side of
b) out of
1) (with verbs of proceeding, removing, expelling)
2) (of material from which something is made)
3) (of source or origin)
c) out of, some of, from (partitively)
d) from, since, after (of time)
e) than, more than (in comparison)
f) from...even to, both...and, either...or
g) than, more than, too much for (in comparisons) h) from, on account of, through, because (with infinitive)

the earth


1) land, earth
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)

and watered


1) to give to drink, irrigate, drink, water, cause to drink water
a) (Hiphil)
1) to water, irrigate
2) to water, give drink to b) (Pual) to be watered


the whole face




1) face
a) face, faces
b) presence, person
c) face (of seraphim or cherubim)
d) face (of animals)
e) face, surface (of ground) f) as adv of loc/temp

of the ground.



1) ground, land
a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
d) ground as earth's visible surface
e) land, territory, country f) whole inhabited earth


Cleary ed goes up not down and ed comes from the earth. Fog moisture that forms from the earth and comes from the earth's surface. I come from south Texas where we have very very thick fog. I have driven many times in fog so thick that infact you have to use you windshield wipers on your car. The fog gets everything it touches wet. Of course fog requires a high relative humity much like you see in green houses. In fact I have seen fog form in a greenhouse the plants literally driped with water. I have seen fog rising from the earth and from the water both.


And as I said before I have NEVER seen it rain upwards even though I have seen a dog fly. So ed is a mist or a vapor and not rain.


If the earth had a vapor barrier aroud the whole earth it would be much like a green house with very high humidity. Scientist tell us that if the earth surface was totally smooth the whole surface of the arth would be covered with about 300 feet of water. The earths surface has deep canyons and trenches and the water is displaced so that only 2/3 of the surface is water. We have coal with huge fern fossils in Antartica so obviously at one time there was a large amount of vegitation in Antartical so the climate must have been drastically different. A vapor barrier with greenhouse effect would infact create a envioment that would allow vegetation all over the world.

 

[Melethiel]

If the earth had a vapor barrier aroud the whole earth it would be much like a green house with very high humidity.

That wouldn't make very pleasant living...so much for it being a paradise.

 

[PreacherMan4U]

Do you believe it took God six days to make the universe or not?

God created in eternity. Time is irrelevant in eternity. It is impossible to place the earthly time constraints in eternity. Therefore, I cannot answer this poll.

 

[JonF]

I would still like to know 6 days relative to what without mater existing until God created it.

 

[ThreeAM]

That wouldn't make very pleasant living...so much for it being a paradise.

If you were naked it might. Ha Ha ha .. No sun burn from UVL nice even heat..no goose bumps etc. etc.

 

[Breetai]

God created in eternity. Time is irrelevant in eternity. It is impossible to place the earthly time constraints in eternity. Therefore, I cannot answer this poll.

Are you trying to say that God created everything in less than six days?

 

[Melethiel]

If you were naked it might. Ha Ha ha .. No sun burn from UVL nice even heat..no goose bumps etc. etc.

I never said anything about sunburn...I meant the humidity. Quite unpleasant, even with minimal clothing. Difficult to breathe.

 

[Breetai]

I never said anything about sunburn...I meant the humidity. Quite unpleasant, even with minimal clothing. Difficult to breathe.

Not if there's more oxygen in the air.

Oh, by the way, since you're Lutheran...

Did you know that Luther staunchly believed in a young earth creation? He called those that teach otherwise, "vulgar" (at the least). I'm really starting to like this quote. The Eastern Orthodox position is also traditionally young earth.

"...as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience".

-Luther's Works, Vol. 22, p. 28.

 

[Scholar in training]

Not if there's more oxygen in the air.

Oh, by the way, since you're Lutheran...

Did you know that Luther staunchly believed in a young earth creation? He called those that teach otherwise, "vulgar" (at the least). I'm really starting to like this quote. The Eastern Orthodox position is also traditionally young earth.

However, the opinions of a few Church Fathers does not constitute the "official" position of the Orthodox.

"...as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience".

-Luther's Works, Vol. 22, p. 28.

And if anyone does believe this, then perhaps he is a heretic. But I know several theistic evolutionists who believe that God played an active role in evolution; indeed, more of a role in building his creation from nothing than the instantaneously created and unexplained beginning of a universe touted by YECs.

 

[Melethiel]

I fail to see how Luther is staunchly believing in a young earth there.