The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Aha. IIRC, some atheist astronomers didn't like the BB because it pointed to a beginning - atheism works better in a universe that has always existed.

So, in a way, the religious influence (i.e. atheism) was what stimulated dislike of the BB. So rejecting that religious influence allows the BB to take its place as a valid scientific theory.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

lol, interesting point of view*and good to crack a smile this morning*

but you could say the same for OEC. That athists are disagreeing with OEC, because it works better without the C part, and rejecting their view would lead to a better scientific understanding.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You could. What you have to do is present a valid Creationism model that explains the observed facts better than evolution and you're rolling.

 

[lucaspa]

the big bang was rejected for many decades because it was viewed as trying to bring God into science, i think that if you people like you where as rampent then as they are now the big bang would still be relogated to a 'relegious' position.

Karl has the history better.
1. Big Bang was never rejected, and certainly not for "decades". It was proposed first in the late 1940s and was overwhelmingly accepted when the cosmic background radiation was found in 1965. That's less than 2 decades.

I suggest you get the book The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner and look at www.answersingenesis.org The first is a book by an atheist that calls the Big Bang a theist conspiracy. The second states that the Big Bang is against the Bible!

BTW, just who are "you people like you"? Remember, Magus, you aren't on an atheist board.

 

[Sinai]

Karl has the history better.
1. Big Bang was never rejected, and certainly not for "decades". It was proposed first in the late 1940s and was overwhelmingly accepted when the cosmic background radiation was found in 1965. That's less than 2 decades.

If memory serves correctly, I think it was about 1931 when Georges Lemaître first hypothesized that the universe's existence began with the detonation of a "primordial atom" of infinite density. It was an opponent who ridiculed the primordial atom theory as being the "big bang"--and the name stuck.

 

[lucaspa]

If memory serves correctly, I think it was about 1931 when Georges Lemaître first hypothesized that the universe's existence began with the detonation of a "primordial atom" of infinite density. It was an opponent who ridiculed the primordial atom theory as being the "big bang"--and the name stuck.

That early? I always see the Big Bang as a theory formulated with the appropriate math from about 1948.

It was Fred Hoyle who used the word "Big Bang". And yes, it was meant as ridicule. Hoyle was the primary advocate of the Steady State theory.

I like Calvin's (of Calvin and Hobbes) name for it: The Gigantic Space Kablooie

 

[Curt]

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

Now if creation days were thousands, or millions of years don't you think those men would be kind of tired by now?

As for evolution being a tool of God. I have a problem with that because evolution has never beeen anything but a theory, and I can't see God using a theory.

 

[TomUK]

First off, i am making no claim of reading all of the previous comments as there's faaar too many, so many apologies if these comments duplicate someone elses (and chances are they will). My own opinion is the non-literal creation story. Adam and Eve were two real people, and they were the first humans to live on earth and they were definitely not descended from apes. I believe in that the use of the word day in Genesis refers to a period of time- how long that period of time lasts varies from 'day' to 'day'. There are three main reasons why i believe this:
1. The concept of 24 hours is a concept which is purely the creation of men. For us 24 hours is the period of time it takes the moon to circle earth. However, the moon wasn't created to four days into creation and so any traditional value of time cannot be applicable at this stage in the worlds history.
2. (This translation isn't my own work, so if it's wrong i apologise) In the original languages of the bible, the words evening and morning can be translated another way- disorder and order. So whereas the bible currently reads "so the evening and the morning were the xxx day", another translation could be "so the disorder and the order were the xxx day". Here the translation isn't refering to a period of time; more to God imposing order and rule onto his creation.
3. Days one to six conclude with the statement "were the first/second etc. day" However, day seven doesn't end with that - Genesis never brings the 'day' to a close like it did with the previous six. This leads me to conclude that we still are living in the seventh day, or possibly we were until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
That's my take things anyway.
PS: I know there's a variety of terms for all the different creation stances- what group do i fall into?

 

[lucaspa]

First off, i am making no claim of reading all of the previous comments as there's faaar too many, so many apologies if these comments duplicate someone elses (and chances are they will). My own opinion is the non-literal creation story. Adam and Eve were two real people, and they were the first humans to live on earth and they were definitely not descended from apes. I believe in that the use of the word day in Genesis refers to a period of time- how long that period of time lasts varies from 'day' to 'day'.

For a "non-literal" creation story, you are taking Adam and Eve awfully literally. You are espousing what is called the Day Age Theory, which is one of the views of Old Earth Creationism (OEC for short).

1. The concept of 24 hours is a concept which is purely the creation of men. For us 24 hours is the period of time it takes the moon to circle earth. However, the moon wasn't created to four days into creation and so any traditional value of time cannot be applicable at this stage in the worlds history.

A day is not the period it takes for the moon to circle the earth. That is a month. Originally, it was the time for the moon to go thru all its phases as viewed from earth. A day is the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis, from sunrise to sunrise or sunset to sunset, or noon to noon.

The authors of Genesis 1 took pains to relate the days before the sun was created to the standard 24 hour day: that is the "evening and morning", to give the rest of the 24 hour day, presuming God created during the "day". Thus evening and morning gives the other half of the day -- the night.

2. (This translation isn't my own work, so if it's wrong i apologise) In the original languages of the bible, the words evening and morning can be translated another way- disorder and order. So whereas the bible currently reads "so the evening and the morning were the xxx day", another translation could be "so the disorder and the order were the xxx day". Here the translation isn't refering to a period of time; more to God imposing order and rule onto his creation.

I've never seen this "translation", and I've looked at a lot of translations. Can you give us a source?

Never mind, I found the source. It's Schroeder again.
"Dr. Schroeder explains that according to ancient Hebrew sages, the word for evening, erev, comes from a root meaning "mixed up, stirred together, disorderly." It brings to mind the confusion we sometimes experience just at dusk, when the mixed up light and darkness can cause our eyes to play tricks on us. Boker, the word for morning, comes from a root meaning discernable, able to be distinguished, or orderly. This word recalls the clarity of vision that accompanies dawn." http://www.gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories/let-there-be-light

Notice that the words come from the roots that denote order and disorder. Not that the words mean order and disorder. Schroeder is making an elementary translation mistake here: he is forcing the meanings on the words by assuming the meaning of the root continues into the definition. Atheists who claim that "atheism" simply means "no god" based on the roots of the word make the same mistake. The roots of a word do not denote how the word is actually used.

3. Days one to six conclude with the statement "were the first/second etc. day" However, day seven doesn't end with that - Genesis never brings the 'day' to a close like it did with the previous six. This leads me to conclude that we still are living in the seventh day, or possibly we were until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

This has been a common interpretation. However, there was no need to bring the day to a "close" because God only rested that day.

Remember, in both Exodus 20 and 35, the days of creation are tied to the days of the week in order to have a Sabbath on the 7th day. If the periods were ages like you are proposing, the Biblical authors could not have done that. Thus, they understood the days as being 24 hours. In fact, the authors of Genesis 1 deliberately constructed creation in 6 days precisely for the reason of justifying the Sabbath! They couldn't do this and have meant "ages" for "yom".

Anyway, what we have here is another attempt to read Genesis 1 as science and try to change it in order to agree with science. IMO, bad approach. Genesis 1 is about theology. Trying to find science in it does injury to the intent of the authors. You should look thru Genesis 1 (and Genesis 2) to find the theological messages about who created and why and what relation the who has to mankind. Not to find out how creation happened. You look to Creation itself to find out how God created. Two books with separate intents and separate messages.

 

[lucaspa]

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

Now if creation days were thousands, or millions of years don't you think those men would be kind of tired by now?

Curt, I've done this before, and you never answered the argument then. So let's do it again.

Exodus 31:15-16 were the original text of Exodus. It reaffirms that the Sabbath is the commandment from God. Now, Genesis 1 was written after the Exodus, so the Hebrews already had the commandment of the Sabbath. However, the authors of Genesis 1 thought they needed a justification beyond that God commanded the Sabbath. I don't think they did, but they did. So they deliberately constructed a 6 day creation when they wrote Genesis 1. Now, the Pentateuch is a redacted document. That is, it was put together from different sources by an editor about the time of Ezra. Rather than being the product of a single author, or even of 4 authors working in concert, the editor used 4 differnt sources and put the sources together into 5 books like a patchwork quilt. Exodus 31:17, like Exodus 20:11, is an insertion by the redactor to try to make some harmony between the sources. So, in this case, the justification comes full circle. The redactor put in verse 17 to complete the circle of making a justification for the Sabbath that the Sabbath didn't need anyway. That God commanded the Sabbath is all the justification it needs, doesn't it?

As for evolution being a tool of God. I have a problem with that because evolution has never beeen anything but a theory, and I can't see God using a theory.

LOL!! Thank you. I need that laugh. Curt, a theory is an explanation of how the universe works. Gravity is a theory, yet it is how God keeps the planets in orbit! Atomic theory is an explanation of why matter behaves the way it does. It is how God made matter -- as atoms. Evolution is simply a description of how God created the diversity of plants and animals on the planet. Hugh Ross, among others, argues that Big Bang theory is how God created the universe -- www.reasons.org

So your idea that God won't use a "theory" is contradicted by orthodox Christian beliefs about other theories. Yes, Christians have always believed that God would "use" a "theory".