Romans exposition from a YEC perspective, your thoughts...

[mark kennedy]

The doctrinal discussion in Romans is focused on two aspects of humanity, sin and righteousness.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Context:

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) It looks something like this:

Romans chapter:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

...your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I don't understand why you label this a "YEC perspective". It pretty much sounds like what I believe, and - you've noticed, I'm sure - your humble correspondent is not a YEC supporter.

Do you notice the part that argues against the YEC perspective?

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't understand why you label this a "YEC perspective". It pretty much sounds like what I believe, and - you've noticed, I'm sure - your humble correspondent is not a YEC supporter.

Do you notice the part that argues against the YEC perspective?

Hi Archie, which part of Mark's post argues against the YEC perspective (I looked but could not find it) ..

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - what position (on Creation) do you hold to? Thanks again!!

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Archie, which part of Mark's post argues against the YEC perspective (I looked but could not find it) ..

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - what position (on Creation) do you hold to? Thanks again!!

Since the evolutionists have started thinning out I've been getting these weird insinuations that I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. I believe the sun was created Gen. 1:1, not day four so it's some kind of Gap theory. I don't happen to think the age of the earth or universe are relevant to doctrine and history, that makes me some kind of non-creationist.

If Archie is a typical TE he pretty much would allegorize Genesis 1, if not Genesis 1-11.

Just to be clear, the creation of Adam was about 6,000 years ago according to the extensive genealogies, Old and New Testament. Old bones and dirt prove nothing, we have in the Scriptures a living witness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I believe the sun was created Gen. 1:1, not day four so it's some kind of Gap theory.

That's interesting.

1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

According to the literal wording, God created 'light' and labeled it 'day' on the first day.

1:14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 1:15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 1:16 God made two great lights – the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 1:17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 1:18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 1:19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

According to tradition, the Sun is created on the fourth day. However, on the fourth day, God is also shown to be separating light from darkness - which He also did on the first day.

So by a literal reading of the text, God created the 'day-time-light' twice.

Mr. Kennedy, you have a good case for the Sun being created on day One of Creation. However, by noticing that, you disagree with tradition. Horrors! Since I disagree with tradition as well, I empathize and sympathize with you. Looks like we're heretics more or less together. Neither of us accept tradition, because it conflicts with the wording of the Bible, and neither of us are KJV only adherents. I'll save you a stake next to mine; we can chat waiting for the fires to be lit.

I don't happen to think the age of the earth or universe are relevant to doctrine and history, that makes me some kind of non-creationist.

And that gets twisted into '...he doesn't believe God made the world...' It is utter nonsense, and a non-sequitur.

I agree with you again, God is God and is the Ultimate, whether the Universe is 6,000 years old or 13.7 billion (give or take an eon) years old.

If Archie is a typical TE he pretty much would allegorize Genesis 1, if not Genesis 1-11.

And IF Mr. Kennedy was a 'typical' YEC promoter, he wouldn't stray from accepted tradition. I'm not much a 'typical' anything.

I accept Genesis 1 to 11 as inspired truth in the same sense as I accept Jesus' parables as inspired truth. They teach what God wants us to know in a form understandable to rather 'uninformed' minds.

My objections to the traditional readings of Genesis 1 to 11 is the same as yours about the day wherein the Sun was Created. I don't think people read it correctly - they rather just accept whatever Dad, Mom or Rev. Tightlipped said it meant. Which is not to be derogatory to Dad, Mom or Rev. Tightlipped, but they accepted what they heard from someone else. None of them bothered to read it with a questioning eye (or mind).

Mark, allow me this rather curious question: Do you think God is mad at you for noting the curious interplay between verses 3 to 5 and verses 14 to 19?

He hasn't told me directly, but from what I do know, I doubt it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Hi Archie, which part of Mark's post argues against the YEC perspective (I looked but could not find it) ..

You read (past tense) it. You just didn't recognize it. Not too many people have. A case of only seeing what one expects to find.

p.s. - what position (on Creation) do you hold to? Thanks again!!

I am probably what is generally called a 'Theistic Evolutionist'. I shy away from that term, as it repeats the depressing stupid error that the Creation of the Universe has anything to do with 'evolution'. Not to mention that most of the 'Creationist' camp know very little about evolution and what they think they know is generally wrong.

In short, I believe the Universe came about in a long and gradual process following the laws of physics God established when He initiated the process. However, that does not imply, state or claim the Universe is independent of God for origin or existence.

As for the matter of the passage noted above arguing against the traditional YEC theory, read it again and be curious.

I will get to it. I just have other subjects to satisfy first.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's interesting.

According to the literal wording, God created 'light' and labeled it 'day' on the first day.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)​

Previous to that first day the literal reading includes the sun, moon and stars. The 'heavens and the earth' are created without a sun, moon or stars, just this big sphere in the middle of nothing?

According to tradition, the Sun is created on the fourth day. However, on the fourth day, God is also shown to be separating light from darkness - which He also did on the first day.

That's not what is says, it says:

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. (Gen. 1:14-16)​

The explanation may even be simpler then that. With no light reaching the earth and the entire mass of the earth covered in water time is, in effect, static. We design and build our calendars based on the movements of the heavenly objects, sun, moon and stars. If they can't be seen from the earth then it's all pretty much the same.

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä'). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from. What you have to appreciate is that the text has been well translated and seldom needs the kind of in depth analysis I'm trying to introduce you to here. Usually when you see 'created' it's describing an act of creation that brings something into existence, something only God can do. Then when you see 'made' it's often a change to an existing creation. Finally when you see 'set' it is an even more precise word that is often translated 'give'. In this context the clearing of the atmosphere would now 'give' a clear point of reckoning for determining the times and seasons.

So by a literal reading of the text, God created the 'day-time-light' twice.

Mr. Kennedy, you have a good case for the Sun being created on day One of Creation. However, by noticing that, you disagree with tradition. Horrors! Since I disagree with tradition as well, I empathize and sympathize with you. Looks like we're heretics more or less together. Neither of us accept tradition, because it conflicts with the wording of the Bible, and neither of us are KJV only adherents. I'll save you a stake next to mine; we can chat waiting for the fires to be lit.

First of all I am not a KJV only, the few I'm acquainted with have no idea what the manuscript evidence matters. I wouldn't say your some kind of heretic but you are dangerously close to denying essential doctrine. Creation is a non-negotiable facts of the Christian faith and in the Nicene Creed they wrapped that doctrine around the Incarnation which amplifies the foundational weight of these texts. That doesn't even start to scratch the surface with regards to original sin, which adds another essential doctrine(s) being hammered by modernists.

I don't care what kind of semantical hair splitting you get into essential doctrine is involved and I have never seen a single TE show the slightest concern.

I agree with you again, God is God and is the Ultimate, whether the Universe is 6,000 years old or 13.7 billion (give or take an eon) years old.

And IF Mr. Kennedy was a 'typical' YEC promoter, he wouldn't stray from accepted tradition. I'm not much a 'typical' anything.

I'm not required to follow popular convention to be a Creationist since I have a detailed exegetical reason why the creation of Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:14-15 are describing two different acts of creation. The term 'bara' is used only of God and it's used 5 times in Genesis 1, three times in one verse. That verse in a Hebrew parallelism describes the creation of Adam and Eve in absolute terms, just as it does the creation of life in verse 21 and especially in the foundational act of creation in Gen. 1:1.

I accept Genesis 1 to 11 as inspired truth in the same sense as I accept Jesus' parables as inspired truth. They teach what God wants us to know in a form understandable to rather 'uninformed' minds.

There is no way of getting figurative language from that text, there is no comparison. The word you are either looking for or avoiding is allegorical. There need be no direct comparison in the text and it is quite literally whatever you want it to mean.

Mark, allow me this rather curious question: Do you think God is mad at you for noting the curious interplay between verses 3 to 5 and verses 14 to 19?

He hasn't told me directly, but from what I do know, I doubt it.

I don't know what your talking about because you didn't bother to tell me what this interplay was. To be honest my biggest problem with Liberal Theology and it's offspring TE, they drain the meaning of the text dry.

What seems obvious to me is the sun being created day 1 instead of day 4 is largely a matter of opinion and conjecture. What is not so up for grabs is the creation of life in general and man in particular.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Mark, you either didn't read my post very well, or you don't grasp what I said.

You seem to think I implied or suggested you are a KJV only type. If you look at what I said, I did not.

But here's what I really want to know: How am I denying essential doctrine? Seriously, spell that out for me, please.