Does your view of creation affect your eschatology?

[juvenissun]

Never understood how you can call yourself YEC when you are clearly OEC Still you are probably quite right that the sociological context played an important part, the rapid development of science, especially as Victorian optimism gave way to a fear of where science was leading, Whitcomb and Morris wrote under the (metaphorical) shadow of a mushroom cloud, in the middle of a Cold War threatening to go hot. But this context did not give us YEC what it did was provided fertile ground when the Adventist teaching Flood Geology found a more mainstream voice in Whitcomb and Morris.

Anything assigned more than a few million years of age annoys me. I like to try to find a way to make it "younger". I think it is a major guideline of YEC.

 

[Assyrian]

edit:
I don't think I follow. The only difference between modern creationism and traditional creationism is that modern creationism denies evidence of an old earth, and because this evidence denial came at the same time as dispensationalism, they are connected?

You are quite right, they are two different issues. The attitude to science is not the only difference between modern creationism and traditional interpretations, but it is certainly the biggest. The connection between young earth creationism and end times views is not that it began at the same time as dispensationalism, but that it grew out of a radical end times movement the Millerites. Don't know that they were actually dispensationalists, though they shared similar end times views.

 

[Assyrian]

Anything assigned more than a few million years of age annoys me. I like to try to find a way to make it "younger". I think it is a major guideline of YEC.

A century ago that was how old OECs would have said the earth was. You may not have kept up with radiometric dating like they do, but it is still OEC.

 

[Assyrian]

Given all of the young earth Creation views from the past from the early church fathers (except for perhaps your beloved Origen and a few other fringees)..and even from Jewish resources such as Josephus, I find the above comment quite hiliarious . Also..what to say of Isaac Newton? He was a Young Earther too.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about modern young earth creationism and interpretations in the 19th and 20th centuries. Obviously before modern geology, everyone in the church thought the earth was young, even people who didn't take the creation day literally. But that should have been clear from my second post.

 

[Mallon]

I like to try to find a way to make it "younger". I think it is a major guideline of YEC.

Yeah, best not to follow what the evidence from God's creation actually says. Better just to force the evidence to fit your preconvictions about the age of the earth.

 

[crawfish]

All I can say is that I stick with the Hebrew and Greek, and the societal context. If thats dispensational..okay . We go with a ministerial use of reasoning and not a magisterial, and that is a key dif between YEC and TE. This is evidently seen from Hugh Ross, who calls Science the 67th book of the Bible.

Hugh Ross is an OEC, not a TE. TE's are not (typically) scientific concordists like OECs and YECs, and thus would not hold such a view.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Hugh Ross is an OEC, not a TE. TE's are not (typically) scientific concordists like OECs and YECs, and thus would not hold such a view.

Have any TE's read Hugh Ross's book, More than a Theory?
Apparently he takes up the challenge of makinga testable model of creation and also makes predictions. Wondering what TE's think of it, since those seem to be among the biggest complains of creationism and intelligent design.

 

[dies-l]

Have any TE's read Hugh Ross's book, More than a Theory?
Apparently he takes up the challenge of makinga testable model of creation and also makes predictions. Wondering what TE's think of it, since those seem to be among the biggest complains of creationism and intelligent design.

I haven't read it, but I am game if I can find a free copy somewhere. When I first became a Christian, I was a creationist. Then, I actually started reading some of the "scientific" defenses of creationism and came to the conclusion that biblically and scientifically, evolution simply seems much more plausible than either YECism or OECism. Incidentally, the author that pushed me over the edge was Kurt Wise. But websites like AiG also did a lot to convince me that YECism is not scientifically defensible. But, if there are sound scientific arguments to be made for YECism or OECism, I'd love to read about them.

 

[Papias]

hama wrote:

Hugh Ross, who calls Science the 67th book of the Bible.

That's cool that he too sees that science is a revelation from God. It's worth pointing out, also, that I do have a 67th book in my Bible, it's the book of 1st peter. literally hundreds of millions of Christians have the book of 1st peter as their 67th book. Other Christians have Bibles with 80 books, or over 90 books, or other numbers.

Maybe refer to Science as the Newest Testament? (after all, where else do we call something 1800 years old "New")? Or the Modern Testament?

Papias

 

[Mallon]

Have any TE's read Hugh Ross's book, More than a Theory?
Apparently he takes up the challenge of makinga testable model of creation and also makes predictions. Wondering what TE's think of it, since those seem to be among the biggest complains of creationism and intelligent design.

I haven't read it, but those qualified to critique the book have panned it:

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/venema_scholarly_essay.pdf
Todd's Blog: RTB and the chimp genome Part 8

 

[mindlight]

I haven't read it, but I am game if I can find a free copy somewhere. When I first became a Christian, I was a creationist. Then, I actually started reading some of the "scientific" defenses of creationism and came to the conclusion that biblically and scientifically, evolution simply seems much more plausible than either YECism or OECism. Incidentally, the author that pushed me over the edge was Kurt Wise. But websites like AiG also did a lot to convince me that YECism is not scientifically defensible. But, if there are sound scientific arguments to be made for YECism or OECism, I'd love to read about them.

YEC does not have to be scientifically defensible to be true since science cannot uncover the primary evidence relating to the events described in scripture to a sufficient level of certainty to overthrow the authority of scripture.

 

[mindlight]

A group at my church is doing a Bible study on N.T. Wright's "Surprised by Hope" DVD. I haven't been to the Bible study, but I watched the first couple sessions on my own time to see what he had to say. Wright seems to get a lot of criticism - conservatives seem to think he's too liberal, and liberals seem to find him too conserative, so it made me curious.

He explains that the traditional Christian view of heaven and earth is not that they are seperate. He says also that when we die, we are dead, and stay dead until the ressurection and the second coming, at which point heaven and earth will become one - the new creation.

I read up on this a little, and saw that this view has indeed existed throughout Christian history, and the view that seems to permeate a lot of Christian culture today (Left Behindesque eschatology) seems to be relatively new in the Christian history.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this. I'd never heard it before and don't know what to make of it yet, but I notice that this view works very well with a creationist worldview.

I know Wright himself is not a creationist, but I think of the nature defying feat of making heaven and earth one... some powerful event that would result in a new creation, and how that would completely go against all science and reason. It resonates with me the same notions of God forging the universe in 6 days, a notion that goes against our scientific understanding of the world, amplifying the power of God as we perceive it.

I don't really know where I am going with this thread, but I guess its interesting to compare your origins view with your eschatology view. Are they similar? compatible? Or complementary in their differences? Do we believe God made a perfect world that went wrong? Or that the world was never right and is building up to perfection?

Just some thoughts.

Science has little to say about our origins or our futures and is a overrated tool for the evaluation of both. Both TE and aspects of Left Behind Dispensationalism are refutable in terms of the witness of scripture.

There are definite literal events in Revelation that most Christians can agree on and there are definite events relating to Creation that most Christians can agree on e.g. God created and Jesus will come back.

There are more specific details that Christians disagree on e.g. 6 day creation in 6000 years and pre, post or a millennialism for example.

A more literal hermeneutic that respects the whole biblical witness regarding the meaning of Revelation should probably tend towards 6 day creation and premilliennialism e.g. Jesus reigns a thousand years in Jerusalem. As this is the only way to deal with the literal meaning of various OT prophecies about the coming messiah which were not fulfilled in the first coming.

 

[σύνδουλόν]

A group at my church is doing a Bible study on N.T. Wright's "Surprised by Hope" DVD. I haven't been to the Bible study, but I watched the first couple sessions on my own time to see what he had to say. Wright seems to get a lot of criticism - conservatives seem to think he's too liberal, and liberals seem to find him too conserative, so it made me curious.

He explains that the traditional Christian view of heaven and earth is not that they are seperate. He says also that when we die, we are dead, and stay dead until the ressurection and the second coming, at which point heaven and earth will become one - the new creation.

I read up on this a little, and saw that this view has indeed existed throughout Christian history, and the view that seems to permeate a lot of Christian culture today (Left Behindesque eschatology) seems to be relatively new in the Christian history.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this. I'd never heard it before and don't know what to make of it yet, but I notice that this view works very well with a creationist worldview.

I know Wright himself is not a creationist, but I think of the nature defying feat of making heaven and earth one... some powerful event that would result in a new creation, and how that would completely go against all science and reason. It resonates with me the same notions of God forging the universe in 6 days, a notion that goes against our scientific understanding of the world, amplifying the power of God as we perceive it.

I don't really know where I am going with this thread, but I guess its interesting to compare your origins view with your eschatology view. Are they similar? compatible? Or complementary in their differences? Do we believe God made a perfect world that went wrong? Or that the world was never right and is building up to perfection?

Just some thoughts.

Ultimately one's view of Creation will directly affect their Eschatology, for if God cannot create in six standard consecutive literal days, as He has said He has done, but instead rather taking an unknown x amount of years, then this affects the re-creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth, the Resurrrection and so much more. How long will those events take, another unknown x amount of years?

 

[Assyrian]

Ultimately one's view of Creation will directly affect their Eschatology, for if God cannot create in six standard consecutive literal days, as He has said He has done, but instead rather taking an unknown x amount of years, then this affects the re-creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth, the Resurrrection and so much more. How long will those events take, another unknown x amount of years?

I don't think anyone here would say God couldn't created the universe in six days just that it isn't the way he actually did it. And if God is not limited by our view of time, he might take longer on the new heavens and new earth than people think too. This is what 2Pet 3 is all about.

 

[σύνδουλόν]

I don't think anyone here would say God couldn't created the universe in six days just that it isn't the way he actually did it. And if God is not limited by our view of time, he might take longer on the new heavens and new earth than people think too. This is what 2Pet 3 is all about.

Let us take heed to the counsel of scripture and not unduly 'wrest' the Epistles of Peter any more than Paul's or other of the scriptures, and let us especially consider verse 8, but first:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

We are to be very mindful:

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

So, that we are all duly warned against making such an error, let us carefully search out the matter in 2 Peter 3 and compare scripture with scripture:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

We are warned of scoffers, walking after their own lusts, their own covetousness and not seeking for the coming of the Lord.

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

These scoffers have heard of the coming of Jesus, but mock at it because it has been so long in coming, that they proclaim that it will never happen. As it was in the days of Noe, and in the days of Lot, so shall it be... The Lord has promised, and He is coming, for there are many texts to look at upon this issue, but let us consider two for now (Therefore prophesy thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread [the grapes], against all the inhabitants of the earth. Jeremiah 25:30; A noise shall come [even] to the ends of the earth; for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them [that are] wicked to the sword, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 25:31).

The Lord has said that there would appear to be a delay in His coming (Matthew 24:48-51), but at the end it shall speak, (For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Habakkuk 2:3)

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

These scoffers deny the Creation and the Flood by the word of the Lord. They may even say they believe, but they preach ignorantly and/or falsely concerning them and thus witness falsely about the very character of God. He is thus called a liar, though God be true and every man a liar. Many will have said, "Lord, Lord" and have been called by His name, but He does not know them.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here we have the point of 2 Peter 3, namely that of the coming of Christ Jesus and His Judgment.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Many have incorrectly used this text to place 'millions' or even 'billions' into Genesis, but the text does not say 'millions' nor 'billions', but rather 'a (single) thousand'. This texts is also not referencing Creation, but rather the Consumation at the end of the world.

Looking closer at vs. 8 we see that the passage does not directly equate 1 to 1000, but rather says, "as" ('like unto, but not the same') "a day", not "is" ('the same').

It is also revealed that there is a built in chiastic structure and ratio of 1:1000 and 1000:1, and therefore does not aide anyone in re-interpreting the literal days in Genesis. Peter is actually drawing this from an old testament text (see also Psalms 84:10):

For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night. Psalms 90:4

Peter is speaking about the soon coming of Christ Jesus, in that it has been promised and will be fulfilled in the Lord's time (Acts 1:7) though many now mock at it.

We may also see that

If scripture implied vast periods of time ('millions/billsions') in the Genesis Creation account days (insert a random unknown x believed astronomical number here), then why bother with 1-7 (1 being Cardinal, 2-7 being Ordinal, each including the definite article).

Why would the author bother with the phrase "evening and morning"? The Bible writers knew of massive numbers, See:

"thousands of millions" Genesis 24:60;

"of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" Exodus 18:5;

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:6;

"he came with ten thousands of saints" Deuteronomy 33:2;

"his thousands, and David his ten thousands" 1 Samuel 18:7;

"the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" Revelation 5:11.

The writers also knew of "Seasons", "Months" and "Years". Why theey then bother implementing the word "day" with a specific numerical (and ordered 1-7) value attached, and instead say "many seasons", "many months/moons", "many years", "Thousand times ten thousand" or whatever is needed?

In every single case, with but one known "exception"* in numbers One to One Thousand (*Zechariah14:7), in scripture where there is a number (whether Cardinal or Ordinal) with the Hebrew word "yôm" (150 times) it always means a standard literal day and nothing else. In fact, Genesis itself sets the rule. Genesis:

1. The term "yôm" is always in the singular.

2. The term "yôm" is always joined to a numeral (whether cardinal or ordinal)

3. The term "yôm" is always a noun. It is not once combined in a compound construct, neither seen with a preoposition, nor genetive combination.

4. The term "yôm" is gnerally defined with phrases related to time, "evening and morning", "light" and "dark".

Genesis is instead very specific and structured so that it cannot be trifled with, and supported by Exodus, Psalms, Gospels, Epistles and Revelation.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

We see Peter speak about the promise, and that the Lord is not slack, as some (now many) count slackness. God is patient toward sinners, so that more yet may be saved from the consumation and destruction to come.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The Day of the Lord will come suddenly, when we least expect it, which is why we are told to be ready now, not later, for people will continue on and be planting, buying, selling, marrying and giving in marriage when the day happens.

...

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

...

2 Peter 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

In each passage we see Peter speaking about the soon coming of Christ Jesus and the consumation. There will come a day, soon to happen according to scripture, for we can know when it is near, yea even at the doors. Just as the Flood happened, just fire destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction is coming to the wicked, the deceivers and the mockers. Probation closed for those standing outside of the Ark forever when the door was shut, and it took a whole week yet still for the results to be made known. Let us choose today to be in the only means of salvation.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

Let us sow the good seed and not the seed of tares.

 

[Assyrian]

Let us take heed to the counsel of scripture and not unduly 'wrest' the Epistles of Peter any more than Paul's or other of the scriptures, and let us especially consider verse 8, but first:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

We are to be very mindful:

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

So, that we are all duly warned against making such an error, let us carefully search out the matter in 2 Peter 3 and compare scripture with scripture:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

We are warned of scoffers, walking after their own lusts, their own covetousness and not seeking for the coming of the Lord.

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

These scoffers have heard of the coming of Jesus, but mock at it because it has been so long in coming, that they proclaim that it will never happen. As it was in the days of Noe, and in the days of Lot, so shall it be... The Lord has promised, and He is coming, for there are many texts to look at upon this issue, but let us consider two for now (Therefore prophesy thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread [the grapes], against all the inhabitants of the earth. Jeremiah 25:30; A noise shall come [even] to the ends of the earth; for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them [that are] wicked to the sword, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 25:31).

The Lord has said that there would appear to be a delay in His coming (Matthew 24:48-51), but at the end it shall speak, (For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Habakkuk 2:3)

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

These scoffers deny the Creation and the Flood by the word of the Lord. They may even say they believe, but they preach ignorantly and/or falsely concerning them and thus witness falsely about the very character of God. He is thus called a liar, though God be true and every man a liar. Many will have said, "Lord, Lord" and have been called by His name, but He does not know them.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here we have the point of 2 Peter 3, namely that of the coming of Christ Jesus and His Judgment.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Many have incorrectly used this text to place 'millions' or even 'billions' into Genesis, but the text does not say 'millions' nor 'billions', but rather 'a (single) thousand'. This texts is also not referencing Creation, but rather the Consumation at the end of the world.

Actually Peter is quoting Psalm 90, a psalm discussing the creation

Psalm 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world,from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of Adam."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

And remember, even though Peter is warning about people becoming weary and cynical about end time predictions, he starts off going back to the creation and quotes a psalm about the creation. You have of course a couple of ways of understanding the thousand years as a day, Moses could simply be using the number poetically to say God's day are vastly longer than ours and beyond our comprehension. Or the 1000 years:1 day is meant as a conversion scale to calculate the exact time of creation, and in Peter, of Christ's return. Given Peter quotes the psalm in a passage warning against the danger of setting dates for Christ's return, this does not seem very likely.

Looking closer at vs. 8 we see that the passage does not directly equate 1 to 1000, but rather says, "as" ('like unto, but not the same') "a day", not "is" ('the same').

It is also revealed that there is a built in chiastic structure and ratio of 1:1000 and 1000:1, and therefore does not aide anyone in re-interpreting the literal days in Genesis.

Thanks I hadn't spotted it was a chiasm, all the more reason to realise Peter is using it poetically. Doesn't mean you cannot reinterpret the days of Genesis through this, just means you cannot use it as a literal conversion scale.

Peter is actually drawing this from an old testament text (see also Psalms 84:10):

For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night. Psalms 90:4

Peter is speaking about the soon coming of Christ Jesus, in that it has been promised and will be fulfilled in the Lord's time (Acts 1:7) though many now mock at it.

Why would people mock unless they thought it was going to be much sooner and expectations were disappointed? Why would expectations be disappointed unless people thought they knew when Jesus was supposed to come back. Peter is warning that Gods timescales are vastly different from our and that he is not bound by what we consider slow.

We may also see that

If scripture implied vast periods of time ('millions/billsions') in the Genesis Creation account days (insert a random unknown x believed astronomical number here), then why bother with 1-7 (1 being Cardinal, 2-7 being Ordinal, each including the definite article).

Why would the author bother with the phrase "evening and morning"? The Bible writers knew of massive numbers, See:

"thousands of millions" Genesis 24:60;

"of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" Exodus 18:5;

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:6;

"he came with ten thousands of saints" Deuteronomy 33:2;

"his thousands, and David his ten thousands" 1 Samuel 18:7;

"the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" Revelation 5:11.

The writers also knew of "Seasons", "Months" and "Years". Why theey then bother implementing the word "day" with a specific numerical (and ordered 1-7) value attached, and instead say "many seasons", "many months/moons", "many years", "Thousand times ten thousand" or whatever is needed?

In every single case, with but one known "exception"* in numbers One to One Thousand (*Zechariah14:7), in scripture where there is a number (whether Cardinal or Ordinal) with the Hebrew word "yôm" (150 times) it always means a standard literal day and nothing else. In fact, Genesis itself sets the rule. Genesis:

1. The term "yôm" is always in the singular.

2. The term "yôm" is always joined to a numeral (whether cardinal or ordinal)

3. The term "yôm" is always a noun. It is not once combined in a compound construct, neither seen with a preoposition, nor genetive combination.

4. The term "yôm" is gnerally defined with phrases related to time, "evening and morning", "light" and "dark".

Genesis is instead very specific and structured so that it cannot be trifled with, and supported by Exodus, Psalms, Gospels, Epistles and Revelation.

Why seven days? You can see the reason if you look at Exodus 20:8-11, 23:10-12 and 31:17. It was teaching Sabbath observance. It is a model for the Israelites working day six working days with evening and morning followed by a Sabbath where they can be refreshed after a days rest. Of course it is hardly speaking literally when it describes God being refreshed after having a rest, that is an anthropomorphism a metaphor where God is identifying himself with the child labourer and the migrant worker toiling out in the fields all week.

But tell me, do you know any other list of numbered days, and there are plenty in the OT, that starts off with a cardinal number 'one day'? They all start off with 'the first day' or don't number the first day and start off counting with 'the second day'. Do you know of any list of numbers that simple says 'second day' or 'a second day' rather than 'the second day', 'a third day' rather than 'the third day'? It isn't until 'the sixth day' and 'the seventh day' that Genesis starts using the definite article. Is there any other list of numbered days in the bible that does this?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

We see Peter speak about the promise, and that the Lord is not slack, as some (now many) count slackness. God is patient toward sinners, so that more yet may be saved from the consumation and destruction to come.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The Day of the Lord will come suddenly, when we least expect it, which is why we are told to be ready now, not later, for people will continue on and be planting, buying, selling, marrying and giving in marriage when the day happens.

...

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

...

2 Peter 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

In each passage we see Peter speaking about the soon coming of Christ Jesus and the consumation. There will come a day, soon to happen according to scripture, for we can know when it is near, yea even at the doors. Just as the Flood happened, just fire destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction is coming to the wicked, the deceivers and the mockers. Probation closed for those standing outside of the Ark forever when the door was shut, and it took a whole week yet still for the results to be made known. Let us choose today to be in the only means of salvation.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

Let us sow the good seed and not the seed of tares.

The Lord will fulfill his promises as he has always done, in his own way and in his own time. If you understand something of God's timing you will realise God really isn't 'slow', not from the perspective that really counts - his, though as Jesus warned, we need to be prepared for whenever we meet him. In the meantime there are two interpretations of scripture that keep exposing Christianity and the bible to scoffing and shake the faith of those who have been taught them, second coming calenders with its antichrist spotting that got it wrong from Napoleon and Hitler to Kissinger and Gorbachev, and young earth creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

I know Wright himself is not a creationist, but I think of the nature defying feat of making heaven and earth one... some powerful event that would result in a new creation, and how that would completely go against all science and reason. It resonates with me the same notions of God forging the universe in 6 days, a notion that goes against our scientific understanding of the world, amplifying the power of God as we perceive it.

Apples and oranges. What you call "our scientific understanding of the world" is God's Creation. Basically, God is telling us in His Creation that He did not create the world in 6 days. This has nothing to do with "God's power". God is just as powerful if He created the earth over 4.5 billion years using the processes discovered by science that He is if He zapped the earth into existence instantaneously.

Nor does it have anything to do with how God ends the universe. IF God chooses to end the universe by merging heaven and earth, that that is "scientific" and "reasonable".

Do we believe God made a perfect world that went wrong? Or that the world was never right and is building up to perfection?

How about "neither"? God said that creation was "very good", not "perfect". Nor in any descriptions of the end of the world is the world approaching perfection. Indeed, Jesus' descriptions of the events don't even hint that the world is close to perfection when God chooses to end it.

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis is instead very specific and structured so that it cannot be trifled with, and supported by Exodus, Psalms, Gospels, Epistles and Revelation.

Genesis 1 is also contradicted by Genesis 2. Genesis 2:4 uses the word "beyom" which is very specific for a 24 hour time period (it is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day to a single day) and says that what took 4 days to create in Genesis 1 took only 24 hours.

What you have done is conflated 2 different things:
1. What the authors intended
2. How God actually created.

Yes, the authors of Genesis 1 intended creation to take 6 days. Why? Because they were making a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath. That justification was later inserted into Exodus 20:11. However, the version of the Commandments in Deuteronomy doesn't have such a justification. Nor is it needed. God commands rest on the 7th day. Period. End of story.

The creation stories in Genesis are there to tell different theological messages. If we want to find out how God really created, we go to His Creation. And there we find that God created the universe by the Big Bang, stars, galaxies, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I don't know, but I don't see any real reason why someone's origins theology would directly affect their eschatology.

 

[Verticordious]

I don't know, but I don't see any real reason why someone's origins theology would directly affect their eschatology.

Well, when a person believes that the History of the Earth is split in to 6 1000 year periods, followed by a 1000 year physical reign of Christ, which position on origins would you guess they fall under?

I suppose I cannot say for sure which came first, but there are many such issues that divide YECs and OECs. Of course beliefs can vary from group to group and person to person, but in my experience it seems that YEC tend to have beliefs that over-emphasize the importance of physical things. They tend to believe that animal death is evil, that physical death is a punishment for sin, and that Adam's sin brought some sorta of physical and spiritual curse upon the rest of mankind, that pain is also a punishment for Adam's sin, and I've even seen one (ICR.org) suggest that Adam was an immortal who had superhero-like powers before the "curse".

Anyway, my point is that most people seem to think the age of the Earth is simply a disagreement over Genesis 1, which is not correct. YEC and OEC theologies have more differences than they do similarities. Back when I first started researching the issue I too thought that YEC and OEC were pretty much exactly the same, aside from the age of the Earth, but I soon found that to be incorrect. There are many theological differences between the two that are fare more important than the age of the Earth.