What do you want out of this?

[Philis]

I'm sincerely asking what you would like to get out of these conversations. For me, I'm hoping to learn more about the literalist view (since that is not the view I currently hold), and in turn that will force me to re-evaluate my view and either change it or even drop it completely. I don't hope to change anyone's mind, I only hope that people will in turn try to understand me, even if they don't agree with me.

I also really want to know how you expect these conversations to go? I can't seem to be polite and ask questions without being insulted or belittled. Are people expecting others to just agree with them? And if someone doesn't agree with you right away does that mean they are being closed minded and they are not a true Christian? For myself, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are honestly seeking the truth of the scriptures. Even when they accuse me of being anti-biblical, it just means they are strongly convicted of their beliefs. However, it is those kind of accusations that make me hope they attempt to understand my view instead of just making personal attacks over it.

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

Just a couple of quick questions:

1. Isn't this thread fairly similar to your other thread? If so, why not just continue with the other? If not, how is it dissimilar?

2. You make the comment: I only hope that people will in turn try to understand me, even if they don't agree with me. What makes you think that people don't understand you

I hope that you haven't taken any of my posts as being personal attacks. I do try to stay above that, but it does sometimes come through or is percieved that way.

I would like you to consider one thing. The two understandings of the creation account TE/YEC are contradictory and cannot exist together. In other words, it cannot be physically possible that the universe and the earth have existed for millions or billions of years and that the universe and the earth have existed for only some 6,000 years. Those two claims of the beginning of universe cannot both be true. Agreed?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Philis]

1. Isn't this thread fairly similar to your other thread? If so, why not just continue with the other? If not, how is it dissimilar?

Which other thread are you thinking of?

2. You make the comment: I only hope that people will in turn try to understand me, even if they don't agree with me. What makes you think that people don't understand you

What makes me think that people don't understand me is that I hear literalists continually saying that non-literalists:

-don't trust the bible
-cherry pick verses
-ignore the new testament teachings of creation
-don't have a legitimate christian view
-have no understanding of hermeneutics
-are only trying to defend Darwinism
-are compromising of God's word
-etc etc etc etc etc.....

If they understood the non-literalist view they probably wouldn't be saying these things.

I hope that you haven't taken any of my posts as being personal attacks. I do try to stay above that, but it does sometimes come through or is percieved that way.

Nope, I don't recall ever feeling like your comments were negative. I think the problem is that someone can mean something in a polite way, but when someone reads it they use a condescending tone in their head.

I would like you to consider one thing. The two understandings of the creation account TE/YEC are contradictory and cannot exist together. In other words, it cannot be physically possible that the universe and the earth have existed for millions or billions of years and that the universe and the earth have existed for only some 6,000 years. Those two claims of the beginning of universe cannot both be true. Agreed?

Yes I agree, but I do think that they can both be Christian views from honest people. How many variations are there of interpretations of Revelations? Many of the end times views contradict each other, but they are still all equally Christian views.

I also don't couple my theology with science. In my experience, YECs tend to see it as a black and white issue, where there is a literal young earth view on one hand, and a non-literal evolution view on the other hand. I try to take the view that many theologians have had over the centuries pre-dating Darwin where they do not see the creation account as literal, but that view isn't tied to a particular view of science. In other words, I could find out that the earth is anywheres from 6,000 to 5 billion years old and my theology and view of the creation account would stay the same.

 

[mindlight]

What makes me think that people don't understand me is that I hear literalists continually saying that non-literalists:

-don't trust the bible
-cherry pick verses
-ignore the new testament teachings of creation
-don't have a legitimate christian view
-have no understanding of hermeneutics
-are only trying to defend Darwinism
-are compromising of God's word
-etc etc etc etc etc.....

If they understood the non-literalist view they probably wouldn't be saying these things.

In my life I have held both YEC and TE views. I am a Creationist now cause I think that it is more true to scripture and that scripture ranks over science when it comes to the question of origins. My wife disagrees and continues to hold a TE view as did most of the people in my Bible College where I argued the YEC view against the prevailing TE view. So it's not true to say that the people from the different positions do not understand each other. I agree with the other poster that these positions are incompatible however and cannot both be true. Also the list you gave does seem to be a fair summary in my view of the problems with the TE view.

Yes I agree, but I do think that they can both be Christian views from honest people. How many variations are there of interpretations of Revelations? Many of the end times views contradict each other, but they are still all equally Christian views.

Yes absolutely. However the reason that we can hold these views and both still be considered Christian is because they are secondary matters to the core doctrinal positions of Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Judgment and indeed the central tenets of the doctrine of creation shared by TEs and YECS e.g. Creatio ex nihilo, God is the Creator and sustainer of the universe.

I also don't couple my theology with science. In my experience, YECs tend to see it as a black and white issue, where there is a literal young earth view on one hand, and a non-literal evolution view on the other hand. I try to take the view that many theologians have had over the centuries pre-dating Darwin where they do not see the creation account as literal, but that view isn't tied to a particular view of science. In other words, I could find out that the earth is anywheres from 6,000 to 5 billion years old and my theology and view of the creation account would stay the same.

Your view of the creation account as some kind of literary framework was shared by Augustine and modern TEs for different reasons. Augustine was looking at God and considering why would it take God 6 days to create something he could do with a click of his fingers. Modern TEs are looking at nature through the eyes of modern science and saying the facts do not allow for a 6 day creation. So in both cases a literal reading of the text becomes unacceptable.

In my view both had bought into a kind of worldliness that prevailed in the culture of their times. Augustine had bought into a neoPlatonic world in which the idea of God and his omnipotence was more real than the world our senses could discover. TEs live in a world in which sciences efficacy in improving and explaining our existence is regarded as clear and consider phenomenological understandings to be out of scope when researching truth claims about origins in the distant past. Augustines worldliness had to do with his acceptance of various assumptions of the philosophers of his times and TEs blindness has to do with the out of scope application of science to an area of investigation in which the normal scientific methodologies cannot be applied e.g. unique non analogous supernatural events that happened a long time ago and for which the evidence trail is inadequate or spoilt.

 

[Philis]

Mindlight,

I appreciate your response and I will make a mental note of what your position is. Since the purpose of this thread is not to debate which view is right, I will simply digest what you have to say and discuss it in more detail with you in other threads.

For now, I was hoping that you and Ted can respond to the questions in the OP about your intentions here. I'm curious to see if anyone would say that they are here soley for the purpose of telling others the truth that they know, or if people are here to learn and possibly modify their view.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sincerely asking what you would like to get out of these conversations. For me, I'm hoping to learn more about the literalist view (since that is not the view I currently hold), and in turn that will force me to re-evaluate my view and either change it or even drop it completely. I don't hope to change anyone's mind, I only hope that people will in turn try to understand me, even if they don't agree with me.

I also really want to know how you expect these conversations to go? I can't seem to be polite and ask questions without being insulted or belittled. Are people expecting others to just agree with them? And if someone doesn't agree with you right away does that mean they are being closed minded and they are not a true Christian? For myself, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are honestly seeking the truth of the scriptures. Even when they accuse me of being anti-biblical, it just means they are strongly convicted of their beliefs. However, it is those kind of accusations that make me hope they attempt to understand my view instead of just making personal attacks over it.

I became a Christian at 18 and immediately took in interest in Apologetics (evidence for the Christian faith). I have always been into Bible study because God has spoken to me so powerfully through the Scriptures. Over the years I have come to find it's hard to get a good Bible study going that is in depth. I don't have a problem with the devotional stuff but I want to dig a little deeper. I started going on secular forums and one day I mentioned that I don't support teaching creationism in the public schools even though I'm a young earth creationist. The descended on me like a mob of zombies, I was astonished at the audacity of their biting remarks but intrigued by the scientific aspect. To make a long story short I developed an interest in genetics and what I want most out of these discussions is to know the molecular mechanisms responsible for adaptive evolution.

You should understand, I take the Bible literally for a lot of reason, that are only dimly related to these origins discussions. I am not driven by any compulsion to defend essential doctrine because frankly, the secular forces that attack the Scriptures haven't got a clue where Christian conviction comes from. I had figured out what I needed to know about Darwinism (evolution or whatever you call it), very early in my debates. It's a philosophical thing known as metaphysics or an attempt at a unified theory.

What do I want from this? I want to know what causes the arctic animals coats to turn white, what causes a protein gene in arctic fish, that turns their blood into antifreeze, to be built from scratch. I want to know how a group of 10,000 living creatures or less, perhaps many less, span across the globe to become the reptiles, birds and mammals of earth in all their vast array, starting 4,000 years ago.

I get so close some times but I can't sort through all the debate drama and try to have an intellectual conversation with people who haven't the slightest interest in science or scripture. The goal of these discussions are simply to beat the other point of view, I play along, but progress is blood for inches. I have learned tons of stuff about genetics, most of which is useless in these discussions because all the evolution apologists care about is making me look foolish and misinformed. Creationists on the other hand have only the slightest interest in these things and tend to find more productive things to do with their time then debate Darwinians. Creationism is essentially ministry minded, more effective ministry opportunities exist then the subject of origins.

I can suggest one thing that might help you with the whole 'literalist' thing if your still trying to be open minded. Start with the New Testament and ask yourself the most important question of all, is the New Testament historically verifiable and relevant? Then you will have to take a serious look at the events described in the Old Testament, the time frame from the Exodus till the time of David being the most crucial. Then and only then will you be able to understand why the Genesis accounts of Genesis 1-11 are so very important theologically.

It might sound like a tall order but trust me, it's not nearly as difficult as it seems. My experience is that what is hard to accept about Christianity are basic doctrine like the Incarnation, miracles, merciless judgments on the enemies of God and your personal guilt and ignorance regarding the righteousness of God. Once you get past that, and if your a Christian you already have, the origins topic is almost trivial in comparison.

Don't let the drama of these debates push you into a rushed decision about what you believe. God alone provides us with what we need with regards to understanding redemptive history. At some point you may want to just ignore us mean ole debaters and search the Scriptures with your heart turned toward the things of God with a central focus, Christ alone. That's whats most important anyway, for you at any rate.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

You responded to my question concerning the two posititions as being contradictory:

Yes I agree, but I do think that they can both be Christian views from honest people. How many variations are there of interpretations of Revelations? Many of the end times views contradict each other, but they are still all equally Christian views.

Ok, let's go with that. Two people can both call themselves 'christians' and hold each of the views. However, and here is the part that gets tricky. One must therefore believe the truth and the other must therefore believe a lie. Remember that the two positions can not, in reality, be true. So, now we get to the same issue of those who believe other religions to be true and make the claim that, well it's whatever your culture teaches you or you've learned or what you believe is true. And there are many who call themselves 'christians' who will support this understanding.

Here's what I want you to ask yourself:
Is it important that I believe what God says is true?

Is it important? Do you believe that it is important, if you claim to be a believer, a christian, to believe what God says is true? Remember, both positions cannot, in reality, be true. God either did create over millions and billions of years or God did create within the last 6,000 years or so. Only one of those claims is the truth and God knows which one it is. He also knows that He was fairly clear in describing to you how He did it.

God also knows that some 2,000 years later, when men knew full well what a day was, and had experienced some 720,000 of them, He wrote with His own finger upon the two stone tablets 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...'

I hope you'll consider looking at this and considering the chronology. Sure, we can all say that maybe the author of the 1 chapter of Genesis didn't have his head screwed on right or wasn't particularly clear about what he wrote, but this verse in the book of the Exodus chapter 20 we know was written after the Israelites came out of Egypt, some 2,000 years after the time of which it speaks, if we believe the 'literal' understanding, and it is claimed that these very words were written by the very finger of God.

So, now we've got to start denying some things. First, well maybe God didn't really write the words on the stone tablet, that was just what 'those' people believed in that day. Maybe God didn't understand what the word 'yom' meant or maybe He purposefully wants to mislead us.

So, here's the next question:

What good reason do we have for not believing that God meant 6 days, each consisting of an evening and a morning?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Marshall Janzen]

God also knows that some 2,000 years later, when men knew full well what a day was, and had experienced some 720,000 of them, He wrote with His own finger upon the two stone tablets 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...'

Not according to Deuteronomy 5:

"‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. ...

These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." (Deut. 5:12-15, 22, ESV)

So, there are other ways of reading the two explanations given in Scripture of the Sabbath commandment than of them both being written by God's finger. For instance, each explanation, either to creation or to the exodus, may be commentary by Moses, and his commentary changed in the different settings. There are other ways of reconciling them too, but it is too simplistic to focus on the one passage to the exclusion of the other and claim that Exodus 20:11 was written by God's finger. That interpretation contradicts Deuteronomy 5.

 

[Philis]

hi Philis,

You responded to my question concerning the two posititions as being contradictory:

Yes I agree, but I do think that they can both be Christian views from honest people. How many variations are there of interpretations of Revelations? Many of the end times views contradict each other, but they are still all equally Christian views.

Ok, let's go with that. Two people can both call themselves 'christians' and hold each of the views. However, and here is the part that gets tricky. One must therefore believe the truth and the other must therefore believe a lie. Remember that the two positions can not, in reality, be true. So, now we get to the same issue of those who believe other religions to be true and make the claim that, well it's whatever your culture teaches you or you've learned or what you believe is true. And there are many who call themselves 'christians' who will support this understanding.

Here's what I want you to ask yourself:
Is it important that I believe what God says is true?

Is it important? Do you believe that it is important, if you claim to be a believer, a christian, to believe what God says is true? Remember, both positions cannot, in reality, be true. God either did create over millions and billions of years or God did create within the last 6,000 years or so. Only one of those claims is the truth and God knows which one it is. He also knows that He was fairly clear in describing to you how He did it.

God also knows that some 2,000 years later, when men knew full well what a day was, and had experienced some 720,000 of them, He wrote with His own finger upon the two stone tablets 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...'

I hope you'll consider looking at this and considering the chronology. Sure, we can all say that maybe the author of the 1 chapter of Genesis didn't have his head screwed on right or wasn't particularly clear about what he wrote, but this verse in the book of the Exodus chapter 20 we know was written after the Israelites came out of Egypt, some 2,000 years after the time of which it speaks, if we believe the 'literal' understanding, and it is claimed that these very words were written by the very finger of God.

So, now we've got to start denying some things. First, well maybe God didn't really write the words on the stone tablet, that was just what 'those' people believed in that day. Maybe God didn't understand what the word 'yom' meant or maybe He purposefully wants to mislead us.

So, here's the next question:

What good reason do we have for not believing that God meant 6 days, each consisting of an evening and a morning?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted, I'll reflect on what you said but you still haven't answered the questions in the OP. It sounds like you are here to preach your message. (I hope you take that as a light hearted statement)

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight,

I appreciate your response and I will make a mental note of what your position is. Since the purpose of this thread is not to debate which view is right, I will simply digest what you have to say and discuss it in more detail with you in other threads.

For now, I was hoping that you and Ted can respond to the questions in the OP about your intentions here. I'm curious to see if anyone would say that they are here soley for the purpose of telling others the truth that they know, or if people are here to learn and possibly modify their view.

Its about finding the truth and sharing it. Christians should not be living a lie. I gain perspective with my occasional posts here and also often find it to be a test of fire for my positions. When you get your opinion out there it can be tested properly and that is a part of the journey to a proper understanding of scripture /God and most specifically the doctrine of creation.

I believe living and understanding the truth is a calling on all Christians but these forums will not be helpful to all of them as sometimes the conversations can be quite direct and abrupt and some people are too sensitive for that kind of discussion. Personally I would prefer to get to the point rather than spend half an hour on pleasantries.

 

[miamited]

Not according to Deuteronomy 5:

"‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. ...

These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." (Deut. 5:12-15, 22, ESV)

So, there are other ways of reading the two explanations given in Scripture of the Sabbath commandment than of them both being written by God's finger. For instance, each explanation, either to creation or to the exodus, may be commentary by Moses, and his commentary changed in the different settings. There are other ways of reconciling them too, but it is too simplistic to focus on the one passage to the exclusion of the other and claim that Exodus 20:11 was written by God's finger. That interpretation contradicts Deuteronomy 5.

''

hi Marshall,

You may have mistaken my post for someone else's, but I didn't mention anything about the Sabbath. I just said that God explained in the law of the 10 commandments which the Scriptures claim were written on stone by the very finger of God, that He created this entire realm in six days. While I cannot account for why Moses didn't speak the exact same words that God spoke there is that difference to account for. In Exodus we are told that the account of the 10 commandments were spoken to the people of Israel by God. They heard His voice, which Moses also makes mention of in the passage of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy we are told that this is Moses recounting for the people what God had spoken.

One indication that Moses did not read the law, but may have recounted it from memory would be that again when God spoke the law in Exodus 31 He did tie the 6 days of the Sabbath with the 6 days of the creation. So, both times that the Scriptures account for us that God Himself spoke of the law of the Sabbath, God made mention that the Sabbath was to mirror His act of creating this realm.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

Well, at this point all I'm hoping to explain is that both understandings cannot be true. God either did create all that is in this realm over millions and billions of years or God did create all that is in this realm in 6 days. Now, there are other claims that the days of creation could have been each a thousand years, or eons or ages, but nevertheless, only one of the positions can be true.

As far as the days each being a thousand years, well, that only stretches the account out by another 6,000 years and science doesn't support that length any more than it supports 6 days.

Anyway, I just ask: What good reason is there not to believe that God created this realm of existence in 6 days?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[KTskater]

I see much of what the OP talks about. It seems like very few people can be adults about this subject. I think the apparent condescension of some TE believers, and the apparent ignorance of science of some YEC believers leads to some of the conflicts. Very few people here are being loving to their brothers and sisters.
I'm here because I'm a believer, love the Bible, and I'm also a student of biological anthropology. Human evolution is something that I study very closely. I've held the bones of Ardipithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus afarensis, and Homo erectus in my hands.
I've also seen blind eyes healed after ten minutes of prayer. The evidence for both evolution and a theistic God who interacts with His creation are overwhelming to me. I like to find others who also share this background in science and faith, because I'm constantly under attack in my field for have faith. I'm also interested in what the other side has to say to justify certain scientific discoveries (aside from just ignoring them), and what my side has to say about some of the theological complications that come from a non-literal view of Genesis. I'm just learning, I suppose.

 

[Philis]

Well, at this point all I'm hoping to explain is that both understandings cannot be true.

You don't think everybody here already agrees with that?

God either did create all that is in this realm over millions and billions of years or God did create all that is in this realm in 6 days.

Why do you tie these scientific views to particular brands of origins theology? If someone understands the creation account in its cultural context and sees it as non-literal, couldn't we still find out that the earth is 10,000 years old and that their understanding of the meaning is still accurate?

Anyway, I just ask: What good reason is there not to believe that God created this realm of existence in 6 days?

I don't know. I'm not familiar with science, just looking at theology for now.

God bless you.

U 2

 

[Philis]

To anyone I haven't responded to directly I have read your post and appreciate the input.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I see I jumped into this thread without answering the OP. Sorry about that, Philis! I've gained quite a bit from my time lurking and posting here. I started reading shortly after I became convinced that the YEC I was raised with and the gap theory I had adopted later were not the best readings of Scripture. I had a lot of questions, and reading posts from people like Assyrian, glaudys and shernren helped me to navigate this transition well. I still have lots of questions -- especially new questions that I hadn't even thought to ask back then -- but I am more settled about the basics than I had been.

The reason I occasionally post is more for lurkers who may be in a similar situation as I was in. I benefited from what others posted, so I hope that I may help someone else. There is also always the potential that someone will point out a flaw in an argument I've used. If it's done in a way that I can see the problem, then I have a chance to learn and point out that I've learned something. I don't post here enough for that to have happened often, but it has happened to me frequently at other forums. Few things increase my estimation of another person on these forums more than the willingness to admit when they were wrong, so I try to swallow my pride when I have such an opportunity myself.

Another reason I continue to read (though even my reading goes in waves) is to better understand many of my friends and family who continue to hold a YEC view. A lot of these people aren't willing to talk much about their beliefs or explain how they deal with certain issues, but they do believe that holding a young-earth view is important. By reading here, I can see how other YECs handle some of the same issues, and also see what material from the larger YEC organizations most resonates with them.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

hi Marshall,

You may have mistaken my post for someone else's, but I didn't mention anything about the Sabbath. I just said that God explained in the law of the 10 commandments which the Scriptures claim were written on stone by the very finger of God, that He created this entire realm in six days. While I cannot account for why Moses didn't speak the exact same words that God spoke there is that difference to account for. In Exodus we are told that the account of the 10 commandments were spoken to the people of Israel by God. They heard His voice, which Moses also makes mention of in the passage of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy we are told that this is Moses recounting for the people what God had spoken.

One indication that Moses did not read the law, but may have recounted it from memory would be that again when God spoke the law in Exodus 31 He did tie the 6 days of the Sabbath with the 6 days of the creation. So, both times that the Scriptures account for us that God Himself spoke of the law of the Sabbath, God made mention that the Sabbath was to mirror His act of creating this realm.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,

I don't think I had you confused with someone else. Your post said that God "wrote with His own finger upon the two stone tablets 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...'". That was the claim I responded to. I pointed out that according to a plain, literal reading of Deuteronomy 5, those are not among the words that God spoke, and the text is clear that God "added no more" and wrote just those same words on the two tablets of stone. So, to claim that Exodus 20:11 was written by God's finger contradicts a straightforward reading of Deuteronomy 5.

Now, I'm not trying to paint you in a corner, and I'm aware of a number of ways of understanding the issue that don't challenge the accuracy of Scripture. One of the simplest is that only the commands themselves were written on the stone tablets. The two different explanations for the Sabbath command found in Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15 may be Moses' commentary on the command, and his commentary changed in each instance of recounting the Decalogue. That explanation doesn't in any way dispute the inspiration of both of those verses. All it does is show that they can't be elevated to a higher place than the rest of Scripture as being directly written by God's finger.

For me, it was a close look at the days of Genesis 1 and how they are referred to in Exodus that led me away from concordist readings of those texts. When I saw how God was willing to inspire descriptions of himself that were very human, even as a labourer working during the day and taking each night off, and even being refreshed on his Sabbath rest, I concluded that this language was more about setting a human template than it was about revealing God's limitations. God's rest is not merely a literal day in the past where God stopped working and was refreshed. God never stops working, not even on his Sabbath (John 5:16-17). If he ever did literally stop working, the universe would not exist! But God describes himself this way, even of being refreshed, for the benefit of human labourers. And so, the only places in Scripture that refer to the timetable of Genesis 1 connect it to human labourers (Exodus 20:10-11, 31:16-17). In the New Testament, the only direct reference to one of the days of creation is in Hebrews 4 where the seventh day is taken as picturing God's rest (and the word "rest" only scratches the surface of what it means) that we are still called to enter.

Also the list you gave does seem to be a fair summary in my view of the problems with the TE view.

I recognize you have a different way of understanding the verses I've discussed above, but I would be gratified if you would accept my testimony that I came to this reading through study and prayer, not because of all those reasons on that list that you said fairly summarize what's wrong with the TE view. The issue isn't that I don't trust the Bible or cherry pick verses or ignore the New Testament or compromise God's word. I fully understand that my experience is not normative and other people have ended up in different places, but for me, deeper study of Scripture led away from a YEC reading, not towards it.

Your experience is different, and I accept that! I'm not suggesting that we're both right, since I agree that many aspects of our positions are mutually exclusive, but I believe we're both fallible people attempting to understand God's revelation. Thank God that our salvation is not dependent on how well we understand Genesis 1, nor is our love of God determined by the sophistication of our interpretation of Scripture.

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

Ok, you accept that the two understandings can not both be true. So, the question is: As a believer do we want to know the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi Marshall,

You wrote: Thank God that our salvation is not dependent on how well we understand Genesis 1...

That would all depend on what God considers it to mean when He says 'believe'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Philis]

hi Philis,

Ok, you accept that the two understandings can not both be true. So, the question is: As a believer do we want to know the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Of course we do.