Implication of Origins

[Critias]

Ignoring your overgeneralization in the last sentence, I have a hypothetical question just for fun.

If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese, how would you manage that since we've been to the moon to verify that it is not? Would you assume the moon landings were a conspiracy to remove God from society? Or would you re-think your interpretation of the passage?

Ben, do you know how I interpret the Bible? Have you ever asked me?

Tell me, what is the authors intended meaning of stating "in six days God created everything in this world"?

 

[Critias]

Just out of curiousity Ben_Hur, since you have been "correcting" your pastor here, are you a pastor? Are you a Biblical scholar, theologian?

I am not implying that you cannot correct your pastor, I am just curious on what training you have to feel you are qualified to conclude that you are right and he is wrong.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Just out of curiousity Ben_Hur, since you have been "correcting" your pastor here, are you a pastor? Are you a Biblical scholar, theologian?

I am not implying that you cannot correct your pastor, I am just curious on what training you have to feel you are qualified to conclude that you are right and he is wrong.

My pastor openly tells us (yes tells us, not asks us) to check these things out for ourselves (these things being EVERYTHING he teaches).

So I am. Unfortunately, I'm getting some different answers in this area.

This time, BTW, I'm ignorning your implied ad hominem attack that I am not qualified to study the Bible......

 

[Critias]

My pastor openly tells us (yes tells us, not asks us) to check these things out for ourselves (these things being EVERYTHING he teaches).

So I am. Unfortunately, I'm getting some different answers in this area.

This time, BTW, I'm ignorning your implied ad hominem attack that I am not qualified to study the Bible......

Didn't I say something about "I am not implying....."? I never stated you were not qualified to study the Bible. I simply asked a question, let me try again.

First, I firmly believe in checking everything a Pastor says against the Word of God.

I am just curious as to why you think you are right and he is wrong. What passages in the Bible led you to your conclusions?

 

[Ben_Hur]

Ben, do you know how I interpret the Bible? Have you ever asked me?

Tell me, what is the authors intended meaning of stating "in six days God created everything in this world"?

You stepped into MY thread, not I in yours. You made a statement regarding how "this" is not about science but phylosphy (at least that is how I took it to mean). So I'm posing a phylisophical question involving scientific discovery as it might relate to a hypothetical Biblical passage.

As far as your last question, the Bible doesn't say, "in six days God created everything in this world." That exact phrase (which you placed in quotes) does not exist in the Bible. You paraphrased it based on your humanly understanding of what it says.

If you had read all of my other posts in this thread and their references, you would know that your question is irrelevant at worst and needs much more clarification at best.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Didn't I say something about "I am not implying....."? I never stated you were not qualified to study the Bible. I simply asked a question, let me try again.

First, I firmly believe in checking everything a Pastor says against the Word of God.

I am just curious as to why you think you are right and he is wrong. What passages in the Bible led you to your conclusions?

"Right or wrong" about what? About evolution/creation in general? Or about raising it to salvation doctrine? Or about lowering it to conspiracy theory.

I think he is right about almost EVERYTHING he teaches. Some of the evolution stuff, not so much. He makes claims about science, that even scentists haven't generally said, so I don't need to go to the Bible to confirm those. The Bible is silent on most of the science stuff anyway.

So if we want to talk about where I think he is right or wrong, I need to know specifically about what you refer. Are you simply talking about the 6-day creation?

 

[Critias]

You stepped into MY thread, not I in yours. You made a statement regarding how "this" is not about science but phylosphy (at least that is how I took it to mean). So I'm posing a phylisophical question involving scientific discovery as it might relate to a hypothetical Biblical passage.

I apologize, I didn't know this was your thread. I was under the assumption that this was a public thread for anyone to comment in.

I believe science starts with philosophical idea's, yes. I believe much of what science says to show proof is philosophy. This philosophy is then given evidence that has been interpreted as its support.

As far as your last question, the Bible doesn't say, "in six days God created everything in this world." That exact phrase (which you placed in quotes) does not exist in the Bible. You paraphrased it based on your humanly understanding of what it says.

Oh Ben, I think you understood exactly what I meant. Let me try again, what do you think the author's intended meaning of this is: "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

If you had read all of my other posts in this thread and their references, you would know that your question is irrelevant at worst and needs much more clarification at best.

What clarification do you need to help you give your response to what the author intended to say by the above quoted Scripture?

 

[Critias]

"Right or wrong" about what? About evolution/creation in general? Or about raising it to salvation doctrine? Or about lowering it to conspiracy theory.

I think he is right about almost EVERYTHING he teaches. Some of the evolution stuff, not so much. He makes claims about science, that even scentists haven't generally said, so I don't need to go to the Bible to confirm those. The Bible is silent on most of the science stuff anyway.

So if we want to talk about where I think he is right or wrong, I need to know specifically about what you refer. Are you simply talking about the 6-day creation?

You said you think he is wrong about six day creation, right? And about Revelations as well correct?

 

[Calminian]

You also implied that it could be defined as an angel - My Pastor, consideres Rev to be talking about angels falling from heaven, not some sort of non-scientifically understood (by the authors) star [the star/angel was given the key to the bottomless pit]. You realize how much work goes into defining those stars as angels or meteors? It is not immediately apparent given a casual reading. I used to think the meaning was litteral sun-like stars for quite a while until people like my pastor pointed out how the word "star" is used in scripture. In fact, this brings up a point about your quote. Here is your quote again.

I still don't think you've understood my post. Stars can also literally be angels. A star in the ancient hebrew mind was any light in the sky that wasn't the moon or sun. Then I gave examples like the star the magi followed. This was most definitely an angel (IMHO). Yet it was literally a star. The the shekinah glory cloud was also an angel (who was a light by night). I even believe that Angels were created on day 4 with the rest of the heavenly hosts (not on day one as I’ve heard many surmise). The Bible is explicit that these beings dwell in the heavenlies. So again there are no metaphorical interpretations necessary. You're trying to force a modern definition of star into the text.

Are you just selectively making arguments for those things that you can hope to make me look foolish?

No. I don’t think you’re foolish. You’re just wrong on this issue. Foolish is often the adjective your camp likes to throw around. Or unthinking and unreasoning like your friend rmw likes to use. And I do recall someone trying to convince you (on your side) that your Pastor sounded foolish. I’m merely trying to defend the Bible and your Pastor. He sounds like someone who could teach you a lot.

Or was that post too long for you?

As you can see I'm responding to a lot of posts. The OECs out number the YECs by quite a margin. Sometimes if the posts are too long I'll move on to shorter ones. To tell you the truth, after seeing the first error in your post, I assumed the rest was built on it (that's often the case). However feel free to repost what you feel was vital, and I promise to respond.

 

[Ben_Hur]

I apologize, I didn't know this was your thread. I was under the assumption that this was a public thread for anyone to comment in.

No problem

Oh Ben, I think you understood exactly what I meant. Let me try again, what do you think the author's intended meaning of this is: "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

Here is the passage in context:
Exodus 20:
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Your question in light of this passage, raises two more questions in my view.

1. Would it have been instructive for God to say "For in six days separated by 13 trillian years the LORD made the heavens.......etc." Or "For in sixTEEN billion years the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea,......and rested on the 17th billion year interval."

That is, there would be a purpose for God to speak of this metaphorically if the universe was indeed as old as scientists say it is.

2. Did the LORD, our GOD, creator of the universe really rest for only 1 24-hour period? I say this because I've heard YEC'ers and TE's alike make claims that God is still resting and that He is still in the 7th day sabbath rest. This still could be metaphorical, just to get a point across to his people (sheep) that they needed to rest every 7 days as sign of His covenant with them. Using billions or trillions of year terminology would only confuse them. Dang, they were confused enough as it was and made a whole bunch of laws that weren't in the Bible anyway.

 

[Ben_Hur]

I still don't think you've understood my post. Stars can also literally be angels. A star in the ancient hebrew mind was any light in the sky that wasn't the moon or sun. Then I gave examples like the star the magi followed. This was most definitely an angel (IMHO). Yet it was literally a star. The the shekinah glory cloud was also an angel (who was a light by night). I even believe that Angels were created on day 4 with the rest of the heavenly hosts (not on day one as I’ve heard many surmise). The Bible is explicit that these beings dwell in the heavenlies. So again there are no metaphorical interpretations necessary. You're trying to force a modern definition of star into the text.

I guess I should have used this passage instead.

Rev 12:4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

Pretty sure that is believed to be angels, but without studying a bit of the OT, it is hard to know that.

I’m merely trying to defend the Bible and your Pastor. He sounds like someone who could teach you a lot.

He already has, as I've stated. You would be impressed if you heard him.

As you can see I'm responding to a lot of posts. The OECs out number the YECs by quite a margin. Sometimes if the posts are too long I'll move on to shorter ones. To tell you the truth, after seeing the first error in your post, I assumed the rest was built on it (that's often the case). However feel free to repost what you feel was vital, and I promise to respond.

You assumed the rest was "built" on it? It was a response to YOUR post. How could it be?

Nevermind, not worth arguing about....

Ok, you can either go back to that post #42 and I also suggest reading post #37, Or you can just read this http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

More specifically at that link, this: http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Top

 

[Critias]

Here is the passage in context:
Exodus 20:
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Your first question could or might ought to be, if God didn't create in six days, why is it said so here?

You would then have to provide an adequate answer that corresponds to what the author intended to convey here. Did the author intend to convey that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them? Or something else?

Your question in light of this passage, raises two more questions in my view.

1. Would it have been instructive for God to say "For in six days separated by 13 trillian years the LORD made the heavens.......etc." Or "For in sixTEEN billion years the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea,......and rested on the 17th billion year interval."

That is, there would be a purpose for God to speak of this metaphorically if the universe was indeed as old as scientists say it is.

Has the earth been around 4.6 billion years? Or does it look 4.6 billion years? Who has the empirical evidence that says the former?

Second, who can comprehend a million years, let alone billions? Time is relative to our view point.

2. Did the LORD, our GOD, creator of the universe really rest for only 1 24-hour period? I say this because I've heard YEC'ers and TE's alike make claims that God is still resting and that He is still in the 7th day sabbath rest. This still could be metaphorical, just to get a point across to his people (sheep) that they needed to rest every 7 days as sign of His covenant with them. Using billions or trillions of year terminology would only confuse them. Dang, they were confused enough as it was and made a whole bunch of laws that weren't in the Bible anyway.

Indeed, the Bible says God rested on the 7th day of the creation week. The question is what did God rest from, everything, or just creating? In context, it would appear that He rested from creating for that day.

The day of God's rest is parrallel to the Sabbath and to the rest on the seventh day. This does not make them equal as events nor in understanding. There is a large problem with people trying to say these events are all the same and equal in meaning and understanding.

It wasn't that they were just confused, they were into lifting themselves up. They created their law, disguising it as God's law to present to the people so that they received the credit instead of God. A lot of this going on in this forum as well.

I will state quite plainly that I believe science today is being used as idol worship by many. Creation receiving the glory instead of God.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Bluff called. Give me an example where mythical people are connected to historical people by long genealogical records as we have in Genesis.

Dafydd III, Prince of Wales in the 13th Century, traces position back to King Brutus who traces his lineage back to Aeneas of Troy who was traced back to the Genesis genealogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Genealogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_British_Kings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dafydd_III

Can you back this up somehow. It sounds silly at face value.

I believe your problem is that you don't understand the difference between mythos and logos. Trying to counter mythos with logos would be silly because the ancients saw them as different kinds of knowledge.

For what purpose are they connected if they were never meant to be real?

They were connected to make many stories into one book.

How is their relationship special of it is no different than anyone else's. If genesis is all a myth, then they're just a people with myths like every other people.

Whether Genesis is myth, legend, or history does not change God's relationship with the Hebrews.

Here is another problem you seem to be having. Just because an explaination for something is mythical doesn't mean that that something suddenly doesn't exist.

Let's say that that Liz and Aaron find a large rock in a lawn. Liz wonders how the rock got there, which causes Aaron to guess that Tiffany brought it. Tiffany comes along and says that she had not brought it. This does not mean that the rock is not sitting in the lawn.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Your first question could and might ought to be, if God didn't create in six days, why is it said so here?

God created us all very differently - thus we have different ways of looking at things.

Did the author intend to convey that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them? Or something else?

Somethings else; God's intention for them to rest every 7 days.

Has the earth been around 4.6 billion years? Or does look 4.6 billion years? Who has the empirical evidence that says the former?

I'm not sure how this relates to what I posted. Looks like you are changing the subject.

Second, who can comprehend a million years, let alone billions? Time is relative to our view point.

I think that is my point. If we look at it like God knows the universe is billions of years old, he may not want to use those terms with people that barely understand what stars are.

Indeed, the Bible says God rested on the 7th day of the creation week. The question is what did God rest from, everything, or just creating? In context, it would appear that He rested from creating for that day.

As you've demonstrated with the phrase in bold, not even you are sure. I am not sure either.

The day of God's rest is parrallel to the Sabbath and to the rest on the seventh day. This does not make them equal as events nor in understanding. There is a large problem with people trying to say these events are all the same and equal in meaning and understanding.

You may have lost me here. Are you talking about the Sabbath and the Seventh Day not being the same and equal in meaning and understanding? Not sure where you are going with that.

It wasn't that they were just confused, they were into lifting themselves up. They created their law, disguising it as God's law to present to the people so that they received the credit instead of God. A lot of this going on in this forum as well.

As far as I can tell, there is no one attempting to disguise ANY human law as God's LAW. Do we need to review what God's laws are now? Or do you want to admit your statement is uncalled for and a bit of an exageration?

I will state quite plainly that I believe science today is being used as idol worship for many. Creation receiving the glory instead of God.

You don't have to look only at science to find idol worship. Are you implying that one who believes in a greater-than-six-day creation is an idol worshiper? Now we're back to lifting Gen 1 to salvation doctrine, or at least calling it sin - as I expected.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Let's say that that Liz and Aaron find a large rock in a lawn. Liz wonders how the rock got there, which causes Aaron to guess that Tiffany brought it. Tiffany comes along and says that she had not brought it. This does not mean that the rock is not sitting in the lawn.

Taking it one step further, maybe Tiffany had Jill bring the rock. It doesn't mean Tiffany didn't have something to do with the rock getting there. Tiffany could take the credit for puting the rock there if she wanted to since she was directly responsible for it getting there.

 

[Calminian]

I guess I should have used this passage instead.

Rev 12:4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

Pretty sure that is believed to be angels, but without studying a bit of the OT, it is hard to know that.

Yes, stars are literally angels. No metaphor. I have a feeling you're still not getting it.

Ok, you can either go back to that post #42 and I also suggest reading post #37, Or you can just read this http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

Why not just repost the relevant portions?

More specifically at that link, this: http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Top

Sorry I don't' reply to links. Put in your own words the relevant issues.

 

[gluadys]

So you actually believe the authors intended to convey a flat earth?

This line of reasoning doesn’t make sense. Had the Holy Spirit conveyed the earth correctly what message would have been lost on the readers? What moral message would not have been understood had He not used a correct description of the earth?

The message would be lost because the envelope would draw so much attention people would never open it. Remember the people we honour as prophets were not seen as prophets by their contemporaries. They were just ordinary joes preaching a message.

Now imagine your ordinary joe standing in a public square starting to preach about how people have slid away from the covenant with Yahweh. He wants to remind them of the great things Yahweh has done, beginning with creation. Probably a lot of people are going to be indifferent to him no matter what he says, but some people will stop and listen. And as he goes on about how God drew a circle in the waters and raised the dry land and stretched the heavens over it and set the sun, moon and stars in the heaven, etc. they start nodding and encouraging him. It's a familiar story to them. They like to hear it, just as people like to hear a singer repeat his best-known songs over and over again. And hopefully it moves them into a mode of worship and glorifying God--and maybe down the road into repentance and renewing their commitment to the covenant.

But what happens if he starts telling them that the earth does not really sit on foundations over the abyss, but is a sphere, and that the sun does not really rise and set; it is the earth which moves through space around the sun.

Remember--they are not directly hearing the voice of God. And as far as they are concerned, they are not listening to someone known to be a prophet. For them, he is now a wacko from cloud cuckoo land. Not worth listening to anymore. Whenever any one raises his name in conversation, the typical reaction will be "Oh yeah, that nut who thinks the earth is a ball rolling around the sun". All attention gets drawn to the "looney" envelope, and the message inside is forgotten.

 

[Ben_Hur]

[It was 59, not 42 that I was thinking of..]

#59:

I think you need to familiarize your self with biblical terms. A "star" to the biblical writer did not mean the same thing that we mean today.

I'm aware of our (Christians') current interpretation of Revelation is. Thank you for making my point. So, while you are apparently saying that at least some of Revelation is metephorical, NONE of Gen 1 could possibly be....ok.

And then the leap in logic. Day means day because there is nothing in the context informing us it is figurative. Day, night, evening (the end of day), morning (the end of night). Moses gives us frame of reference when he compares creation week to the jewish work week. There's no reason to make it figurative.

Actually, there is.

Here are some counter arguments to what would be your arguments to that effect: (ref this online book)

Argument #1

That the twenty-four-hour interpretation is the most literal reading of the text; God should have used alternate wording if He had intended the "age" interpretation.​

This certainly seems true. Although the Hebrew word for day "yom" can also refer to an indefinate period of time, this is not obvious to an English reader today; but, as we have seen, this is what we might expect even if the "age" interpretation is the correct one. God sometimes hides truth from the wise and Genesis 1 is a natural target for this; there is a need to be fair to nonscientists. In any case, Genesis is an extermely ancient writing; it was not originally written in plain English and is likely to be difficult to understand.

Even so, the actual text must tell the truth; furthermore, we ought to be able to see it if we are honestly looking for it. Because scriptural authority must not be compromised, only the literal interpretations will be accepted here. Spiritual, symbolic or figurative interpretations will be rejected. While it is true that the twenty-four-hour sense of the word "yom" is far more common than the "age" sense, the "age" meaning is still a literal rendering of "yom." It is not spiritual, symbolic or figurative. This was seen in the previous chapter from the parallel between the ancient Hebrew "yom" and the modern English "day." Also, "day" was used this way in Genesis 2:17. The twenty-four-hour and "age" interpretations are both literal. Although the twenty-four-hour meaning for "yom" is more common or more plain reading, it is not really more literal than the "age" meaning.

Argument #1, for the twenty-four-hour interpretation, does not hold up under strict inspection. The decision on the length of the Genesis "days" should be made on some other basis.

Argument #2

That Genesis 1:14 forces the twenty-four-hour interpretation by using "yom" in a context which excludes the "age" possibility.​

This argument says that since the word "days" 6 in verse 14 is used in a context which can only mean a sequence of twenty-four-hour periods, other usages of the word "day" in the same passage must follow suit and also refer to twenty-four-hour periods. 7

The use of the same word in a closely related passage is a good general rule of interpretation; but this rule must not be applied carelessly. Because the word "day" is used many times in this passage, all of the usages should be considered to get the whole picture - not just one from verse 14.

In the first two chapters, 8 where the "days" in question are found, the word "day" occurs fifteen times and the word "days" once. The single occurrence of the word "days" carries the twenty-four-hour meaning. Of the remaining fifteen usages, nine refer to the days of creation themselves. No assumptions can be made about them because that would be "begging the question." 9 Of the remaining six, the context forces the twelve-hour daylight meaning (as opposed to night) four times and a greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning twice. 10

Because "day" is used so many different ways, this rule gives different results depending upon how it is applied. There are three different possible meanings for "day" used in the surrounding context. Obviously, this rule is not infallible. 11 After all, it is not scripture itself, just a fallible human theory about scripture. Again, the decision about the length of the creative days must be made on some other basis.

Argument #3

That the use of the Hebrew expression "evening and morning" forces the twenty-four-hour interpretation.​

This argument is presented as if it were a general rule of interpreting scripture; but no reason is provided as to why it should be considered a valid one - especially considering the antiquity of the text. Like the word "day" the Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" ("arab" and "boqer") both have multiple definitions. It can be seen from Psalm 90:14 that "Morning" carries a meaning which is not tied to a twenty-four-hour day:

"O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." - K.J.V. Emphasis mine.

​

Here, the Hebrew word "boqer" (emphasized word) was translated as "early" rather than "in the morning" because it was obvious from context that "in the early part of a person's lifetime" rather than "in the morning of a particular twenty-four-hour period" was what the Psalmist had intended; otherwise, whether the blessing came in the morning or the evening would have very little to do with how much time would remain for rejoicing during that person's lifetime. 12

But what about when "evening and morning" appear together as argument #3 requires? Psalm 90:14 does not exactly apply because "evening" and "morning" are not both used there. "Evening" and "morning" occur together many places in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis, this happens six times. Other usages are: Exodus 18:13, 14 & 27:21; Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 9:21; 1 Samuel 17:16; 13 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4 & 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26. As can be seen from examining context of these verses, the expression usually carries the idea of "continuously." For example, instruction may be given to do something "evening and morning." Not only is the thing to be done in the evening and in the morning, but it is also understood that it is to be done day after day. The Living Bible renders the expression "Day and night" in Exodus 27:21. Other acceptable paraphrasings might be "day after day" or even "around the clock" in some cases.

At first glance, the sense of "continuously" does not seem to fit into the context of Genesis 1 no matter which interpretation is assigned to the six days; but it is possible that this phrase is telling us that each of God's creative acts merely commenced on the particular day named and then continued during subsequent days. If this were the case, either interpretation ("age" or twenty-four-hour) would fit equally well.

None of the usages of evening and morning appear to limit an event to just twenty-four hours. Job 4:20 speaks figuratively of men's "houses" of clay which are destroyed between "morning and evening." This process seems slow to men but not to God. Daniel 8:26 relates a vision of Daniel's which covered future dynasties of man up until the end time.

"And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." - Daniel 8:26, K.J.V. Italics theirs.​

Here the expression "evening and morning" appears to mean something like "from beginning to end" - the entire rule of man. The translators of both the N.I.V. and N.A.S. Bibles rendered the phrase as "evenings and mornings" - apparently to make the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning more clear to modern readers. ("Evening" and "morning" are both singular in the Hebrew.) Daniel seems to confirm the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning, but the confirmation is weak; Genesis and Daniel represent very different times and cultures. 14

In any case, the presence of the expression "evening and morning" does not by itself establish that the "days" of creation were twenty-four hours in length. It would seem there is still no clear way to decide how to interpret the word "day." As before, the decision should be made on some other basis.

There are FIVE other arguments at the reference I listed. For sake of making this post way too long, I'll let you go there.

It's exactly as azzy says. Satan is tapping you on the shoulder (no not literally) and saying, "Did God really say.....???"

So you are saying it is Satan that is driving us to clearly understand and interpret scripture? Was it Satan who drove the first guy studying Revelation to say, "did God really mean an actual star fell to earth?" Interesting.....

And furthermore God never told you to go to nature to test what He said about the earth's age. This would be like Christ telling you to take the wine He created to a lab to test it's age. Of course the lab's conclusion will be off because their presuppositions are off.

Well, he told us that HIS INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES are CLEARLY SEEN and understood by the THINGS that are MADE.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

WE are MADE, therefore we CLEARLY SEE God's invisible attributes - one of which is that the universe looks eternal and, oh ya, God is eternal! Another one: time is a property of the universe he made (Gen 1:1), therefore, God must be OUTSIDE of time as the baker is OUTSIDE of the cake - He's eternal! Another one: No matter how old we find the universe to be, God is older! The older we find it to be, the more glorified God is in demonstrating us his eternalNESS.

He didn't tell us to GO to nature to TEST it. He said we would CLEARLY SEE it.

And no, your side is actually closer to gnosticism. You’re claiming you have the true key to Bible interpretation—knowledge of modern scientific theories.

On the contrary, I'm saying that MAN does NOT have the true key and MAY not be able to surmise the actual length of time it took God to create the universe - especially since time is meaningless to God in His Eternal existance. Remember Gallileo? Geocentrism? Man's interpretation of the scripture at the time was most certainly flawed. Through observation, we were able to prove that. We canNOT re-observe creation, therefore we can say that it's possible we haven't done the best job of interpreting the text.

It appears that YOU are the one saying you have the true key and will not even consider that you may be wrong. You are not behaving as if you have an open mind. I used to be YEC but CONSIDERED that I might be wrong because I am not infalible, neither are you, nor are the writers of the books of the Bible - who's message was inspired, which does not mean they took dictation from God. I totally am open to the possibilty that I'm still wrong. Maybe we are ALL wrong about the details of creation. I don't have a problem with being wrong about it. In my OP, my problem was raising this issue to salvation doctrine or lowering it to conspiracy theory.

 

[Ben_Hur]

#37:

To think that God was not able to creat the universe in 6 days is to limit God.

I don't think any TE or PC says that God canNOT do that. They are just saying He didn't do that. God chose NOT to do that. They are saying our (and possibly Moses') interpretation of a 3000+ year old scripture may be a bit off.

Here is a quote from Don Stoners Book (http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM) that might shed some light on the potential problem with interpretation:

It is difficult to simply read the first chapter of Genesis and come away with any but the six-consecutive-twenty-four-hour meaning; but how much of this is because of the actual wording of Genesis and how much is because of what we have simply heard? Do the actual words of Genesis really make literal sense to us? "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day." (Genesis 1:5). What could a literal "morning" possibly mean before the sun was "made?" (Genesis 1:16). Furthermore, the "plain English" which a modern reader encounters is not quite the same as the original Hebrew. Genesis might be harder to understand than is normally assumed. The first chapter of Genesis is an ancient work; for this reason, it might be difficult to understand. Consider this verse from The Faerie Queen, by Edmund Spenser, 7 first published in the year 1590 AD:

A gentle Knight was pricking on the plaine, Ycladd in mightie armes and silver shielde, Wherein old dints of deepe woundes did remaine, The cruell markes of many' a bloody fielde; Yet armes till that time did he never wield. His angry steede did chide his foming bitt, As much disdayning to the curbe to yield: Full jolly knight he seemed, and faire did sitt, As one for knightly giusts and fierce encounters fitt. - Book 1, Canto 1, Verse 1.​

To a modern reader, the term "curbe" (curb in modern spelling) seems to mean something like a command to "halt." But this makes the rest of that line confusing. The term actually refers to part of the horse's bit. In this example, the correct literal reading is not the plainest one! "Yielding to the curb" can even mean "being run off the road" in today's "plain English." This was written a mere 400 years ago and in an archaic form of our own language; yet it is still difficult to understand.

By comparison, the first chapter of Genesis was written in Hebrew, and thousands of years ago by even the most conservative estimates. There is evidence that the Hebrew may be a translation from a yet older account. 8 The original was probably written even before the sun and moon were given proper names. 9 Notice that they are simply referred to as "great lights." It is difficult even to imagine an account of this antiquity.

Because we have difficulty understanding Spenser, who is relatively recent, we have no guarantee that a plain reading of Genesis 1 will make any sense at all to us. It is likely that we will have to be very careful if we hope to understand the creation account correctly.

 

[gluadys]

Scientific deductions that start with naturalistic presuppositions can only be correct if those initial assumptions are true. Does that help?

Pretty well. Science is an exploration of natural events and processes. Does it make sense to you that because of what it is, science cannot factor in miracles? A miracle is not a natural event or process, so it must remain outside the domain of science.

It is not a matter of willfully excluding miracles or the God of miracles. It is a matter of what science is capable of. Science can tell you, or attempt to tell you, what the situation is if no miracle is assumed to have happened. As soon as you posit a miracle, science has no more to say. It cannot comment one way or the other because analysing miracles is beyond its competence.

Being that theories like this are always being adjusted and corrected it's best to say that evolution can only be correct if Genesis is a myth. But if the Bible is wrong I suppose the alien seed theory could be correct as well.

Is it your position that if Genesis is a myth, it is wrong?

I'm not a scientist so don't feel qualified to comment on scientific theories. There are some other creationists much more qualified than I (or is it than me? )

Fair enough. I have reasons for not taking the stance you are, but I'll take them up with people who are willing to explore the scientific facts.

Oh, and you were right the first time: it's "I" not "me". You can trust me on this one. I spent ten years teaching English grammar.