What this is all about

[Martyrs44]

To be clear, are you lumping the meaning in with the method? For example, one of the meanings in the creation account is that God made everything. Isn't that meaning still true no matter how He did it?-

Yes, but it does matter how he did it, for He told us in no uncertain terms how He created. With His Almighty power in six literal days. And perhaps the most obvious indication of the literal nature of those first six days is in the very language of chapter one: "and the evening and the morning was the first day....and the evening and the morning was the second day..."etc. This is by the Holy Spirits inspiration and He wanted the reader to know that each day had a morning and an evening. So that nullifies any honest attempt at determining those days as long ages or epochs of time for the creation of the world. The language is unambiguous.

Or can the meanings found within the creation account only be true if the story is literal history?

There are no 'if's'. Moses repeated the account in the very ten commandments. "For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is..." the point being that the seven day week with one day of rest was based upon the very first week of the world at the creation.

From what I understand so far the creation account seems to draw on ancient cosmology. For example, the waters above the firmament, and the stars being in the firmament, doesn't describe the universe as we know it.

Not as we know it now, right. But as Adam and Even knew it: in perfection. But since the fall of man the world has been slowly degenerating into disorder. That by the way is opposite to evolution by itself.

You made a reference to how people would have believed it prior to Darwin and I think it's worth pointing out that the ancient audience would have interpreted this as a solid dome with stars fixed in it, and waters above that.

True, there was an ice dome over the earth, clear as glass. I personally think it served as a giant magnifying glass and the people from Adam's time to Noah's flood could see the distant galaxies as clearly as we now see the moon. And they were much closer then than they are now.

This is evident because that is the cosmology they had of the universe. That was even believed right up Luther. If you had been raised a thousand years ago you probably would have also thought that the bible was describing that kind of cosmology.

But Moses was inspired by God and uninfluenced by pagan thought in what he wrote of the origin of our world in Genesis. What he wrote is exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write.

The point is this

: It seems that God spoke through symbols and an understanding that the ancients had in order to correct their understanding of polytheism and of man's relationship with God (as opposed to trying to give us a science lesson). That doesn't mean the bible is wrong, it's simply an apologetic to the other creation accounts from other religions of that time. The meaning is what's important, and that is true whether He did it literally as the bible describes or whether science shows us a different way that it happened.

I answered this one before. Read every single passage that the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said about creation, Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Lot's wife and see if they even hinted that the accounts were anything less than historical. There is no support from within the rest of scripture for a 'symbolic' interpretation of Genesis. It would be well worth your time and effort to scan the scriptures by making use of Crudens Concordance or Strongs Exhasutive concordance(preferably on the computer, because it's faster) and look up the suggested names I just gave you.

Does that sound like an un-Christian view to you? I'm still learning about this.

Good for you. You are now where I was 44 yrs ago. Still wondering and searching. The answers are there for you but only if you are honest as the Lord points things out to you.

I hope and pray the best for you.

 

[Philis]

So that nullifies any honest attempt at determining those days as long ages or epochs of time for the creation of the world.

The answers are there for you but only if you are honest as the Lord points things out to you.

I must admit I'm pretty put off by these comments. You are essentially saying that my understanding thus far is derived from my own dishonesty. You are calling every other Christian here dishonest who doesn't agree with you.

Think about it this way; If a group of pastors from different protestant denominations got together you know there would be some differences in their theology. What would you think of the pastor that says "It's too bad you guys aren't being honest about these issues."

I will reply to your post and challenge it because I still want to hear what you have to say about theology, but I'll come back later so that I avoid making petty comments back at you because I'm still a little angry about your attitude. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are seeking truth and being as honest about it as they can be. Making personal attacks on people (even if it's indirectly) is childish and petty.

Sorry for the rant, I'll be back to discuss the issue a little later after I calm down.

 

[Martyrs44]

I must admit I'm pretty put off by these comments. You are essentially saying that my understanding thus far is derived from my own dishonesty. You are calling every other Christian here dishonest who doesn't agree with you.

Think about it this way; If a group of pastors from different protestant denominations got together you know there would be some differences in their theology. What would you think of the pastor that says "It's too bad you guys aren't being honest about these issues."

I will reply to your post and challenge it because I still want to hear what you have to say about theology, but I'll come back later so that I avoid making petty comments back at you because I'm still a little angry about your attitude. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are seeking truth and being as honest about it as they can be. Making personal attacks on people (even if it's indirectly) is childish and petty.

Sorry for the rant, I'll be back to discuss the issue a little later after I calm down.

Yes, little lady you do need to calm down for there was nothing wrong with what I said. Forget me and just pay close attention to the details of scripture. I pointed it out in detail above.

Please do not come to me personally as you did and then get angry when I tell you the truth. That is not right.

I once likewise argued for evolution and believe in it as you apparently do but the Bible does not yield a pro-evolution position to any degree.

Nonetheless, I hope the best for you.

 

[Philis]

True, there was an ice dome over the earth, clear as glass.

Let's start with this one thing. How do you get this from the creation account? (I'm not interested in the science as I'm not as familiar with it, so let's stick to theology if that's ok.)

 

[Martyrs44]

Let's start with this one thing. How do you get this from the creation account? (I'm not interested in the science as I'm not as familiar with it, so let's stick to theology if that's ok.)

Since I make you feel so uncomfortable I think it would be best for you to discuss the matter with other creationists. I would recommend Smidlee, or perhaps Mark Kennedy. He is as good if not better in his knowledge of the scriptural teaching than I am.

 

[Philis]

Since I make you feel so uncomfortable I think it would be best for you to discuss the matter with other creationists. I would recommend Smidlee, or perhaps Mark Kennedy. He is as good if not better in his knowledge of the scriptural teaching than I am.

I'm sticking to the facts and leaving personalities out of it. Do you have reasons from in the scripture to think there was a dome of ice over the earth?

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

You responded: Thanks for the long response, but unfortunately you didn't actually address the questions in the OP. I was asking if you could explain what the OTHER perspective is, not if you could defend your own. What is it that you think the TEs believe?

You are correct that I didn't answer your question: I'm wondering if the YECs can explain how the TEs understand the creation account? Do you think they've brushed it off? Do you think there is a meaning that they see in it? If so what is that meaning?

I answered more your next statement: I'm of the variety that if someone says they see it differently I want to hear what it is and gain an understading of their position, even if that means I won't agree with them at the end. At least I will know where their heart is at and if they are truly after learning about God's word and living the Christian life.

Trying to give you the why's and wherefore's of what I believe.

So, let me answer the question: I believe that the abbreviation TE stands for 'theistic evolution'. That basic concept is that there is a god and how we got to who and what and where mankind is today is through the process of evolution. Now, people define the 'evolutionary' process differently, but I believe that the basic premise is that at the beginning of our universe, whenever and however that came to be, there were some very basic life forms. Some would even claim that there was only one and that through some sort of 'evolutionary' process that one beginning life form in the million, billion years past 'evolved' into all the various life forms that we have. Some believe that there may have been several life forms and that those several, through 'evolutionary' process, evolved into the life forms that we see upon the earth today.

They generally believe that some more powerful being, called god, the universal spirit, and other identifiers 'started' everything millions and billions of years ago and that by this more powerful being evolutionary changes were directed until there was a living breathing man upon the planet like men are today.

They then believe that once this man, that this more powerful being eventually caused to be created through the evolutionary process came on the scene, the more powerful being began to direct all of his attentions and energies to working with and through mankind a work of salvation for sin.

Hopefully this explanation is more in line with your question.

You also asked for our thoughts as to why they might hold to this understanding:

Do you think they've brushed it off?

I'm not sure that 'brushed it off' really explains my understanding. As I did state in the earlier post, while it may not be the reason that all TE's want to hold to this understanding is the labeling issue. Just as another poster said:

Actually one early Christian theologian, St. Augustine, answered that very well.

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

Even this man Augustine infers that our not believing and accepting what non-christians believe, if and that's a very big and unprovable if, they hold knowledge with certainty from reason and experience. He then proceeds to label the christian position that would hold out against this basically unprovable knowledge and certainty from reason and experience as 'nonsense'. Philis, that is exactly what Paul warned us about the Christian faith. That it would seem as foolishness to those who are perishing. Now what this poster has done is bring in what some believe to be a 'big gun' in christianity and say, "See, even this guy says you're being foolish."

Look, I don't have a clue whether Augustine knew the truth himself or not. Neither do they. The only thing I know with absolute certainty and faith is that God's word is true. This explanation from Augustine, and of course they call him a saint because that's what the catholic church calls him and the catholic organization doesn't know if he is or isn't a saint either, may or may not be true, but for a christian to say that our holding to Scriptural 'truth' would make us look foolish in the eyes of unbelievers just seems to be exactly what Paul told us would be the 'truth'.

When we say to unbelievers that Jesus died for our sin, that's foolishness to them and so christians look foolish in their eyes. Does that mean that I should give up on believing or teaching that Jesus died for our sin? Atheists will tell you that there is no God, and all those who believe in such imaginings are foolish. Does that mean that we should then give up our faith in God because, well, it's just going to make me look foolish? So, I'm not convinced that this writing by Augustine is something we should strive to follow and adhere to.

You asked:

Do you think there is a meaning that they see in it?

Oh, I'm sure they do. There was a time in Israel when God condemned them for offering up their children as sacrifices to false gods. Did they see any meaning in what they were doing? Sure they did! No parent just tosses their child that is flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone just because it's a bright sunny day and gosh it sure would be nice for me to murder my child today. They saw meaning in it. They believed with all their heart, surely, that what they were doing was to appease some god. So the question is: Is it the correct meaning? Is it the meaning that God intended for us to understand when He caused to be written the Scriptures?

You also asked:

What is necessary that they are missing and how have they dealt with it?

I think they are missing the full power and glory and majesty and certainly the purpose for which God created this realm of existence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Philis]

I think they are missing the full power and glory and majesty and certainly the purpose for which God created this realm of existence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks again Ted for the long thought out reply. I only have a few minutes so I can't respond to it all right now. In the meantime I have a quick question for you. What is the purpose that you mention above that they are missing? Can you be specific about what this purpose is that you see in the creation account that TEs don't see?

 

[Martyrs44]

I'm sticking to the facts and leaving personalities out of it. Do you have reasons from in the scripture to think there was a dome of ice over the earth?

One last and then I will let you communicate with the others:

Yes: the 40 days and 40 nights it rained on the earth and flooded the whole earth. It had to come from somewhere but as things are now there is not enough moisture in the air nor enough evaporation from the earth to justify that amount of rainfall over such a long period. The ice shield answers that problem easily. God caused the firmament to change and the ice melted a little at a time...over that same forty days.

Secondly, this is the reason why human beings lived much longer before the flood of Noah as opposed to those who lived after. UV light was largely blocked out by the ice shield before the deluge and it gave rise to longevity.

There is a verse which brings this truth out:

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? Job 37;17

Def: Molten - "to pour out (transitive or intransitive); by implication, to melt or cast as metal; by extension, to place firmly, to stiffen or grow hard:--cast" Strongs Ex. Concordance.

 

[Philis]

God caused the firmament to change and the ice melted a little at a time...over that same forty days.

So you think that the ice was the firmament? Or over the firmament? I'm just trying to fit this view to scripture. The firmament in Genesis is a solid dome (according to Strong's Concordance) and the stars, sun and moon were all placed within it. The waters were above that. I'm just trying to figure out how a solid dome of ice fits into that description.

Just looking for clarification, hopefully you'll keep responding and let me know how an ice dome fits into Genesis 1. I had never heard this ice dome idea before and it's interesting.

 

[Papias]

Hi Philis and welcome to the Origins forum!

I hope you enjoy the discussions here.

You wrote in response to martyrs44:

Do you have reasons from in the scripture to think there was a dome of ice over the earth?

May I offer some support for martyr's statement?

While scripure never explictly says that it is made of "ice", it does often describe the world as such - and "ice" is a pretty defensible idea, in the book of Ezekiel it is described as looking like ice.

For starters, in Genesis where it says God made "the sky", the work that has been translated as "sky" is better translated as "hard dome"Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17. It literally means "bowl beaten into shape by a hammer" - "raqiya".

This solid dome is put over the earth like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

As a TE, I myself don't think that these verses should be interpreted literally - but if one is to stick to a literal interpretation, then I'd have to side with martyrs44 on the "ice dome" idea.

Papias

 

[Philis]

Hi Philis and welcome to the Origins forum!

I hope you enjoy the discussions here.

You wrote in response to martyrs44:



May I offer some support for martyr's statement?

While scripure never explictly says that it is made of "ice", it does often describe the world as such - and "ice" is a pretty defensible idea, in the book of Ezekiel it is described as looking like ice.

For starters, in Genesis where it says God made "the sky", the work that has been translated as "sky" is better translated as "hard dome"Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17. It literally means "bowl beaten into shape by a hammer" - "raqiya".

This solid dome is put over the earth like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

As a TE, I myself don't think that these verses should be interpreted literally - but if one is to stick to a literal interpretation, then I'd have to side with martyrs44 on the "ice dome" idea.

Papias

Thanks but does that mean that the sun and stars were placed in the ice like Genesis 1 says? (I understand it's not actually your view)

 

[Assyrian]

How wide does the Assyrian fellow...

Odd that, you objected to Philis mentioning you in the OP, yet here you are discussing me in the third person

...think that God’s truth is? Did God give us multiple choice in the view of creation (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and then tell us that any of the above views are acceptable in His sight? Since when?

He certainly gave us multiple creation accounts telling the story in very different ways. You have the seven day account in Genesis 1 echoed in Exodus which describes God as a labourer refreshed after his Sabbath rest, Exodus 31:17 in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Moses interpreted the Genesis day as teaching Sabbath observance, yet the NT further interpreted Sabbath observance as a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17. So apparently the Genesis contain a prophetic picture of our redemption in Christ.

Hebrews 3&4 has its own take on God's seventh day rest, very similar to Colossians but looks of God's rest as ongoing and one we are called on to enter into 'Today', interpreting not only God's seventh day as a long extended period of time, but also the 'Today' in Psalm 95 as ongoing too, Psalm 95:7 Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts. Again God's seventh day teaches us about the gospel because we enter God's rest by ceasing from our own works Heb 4:10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Then you have the creation account in Genesis 2 which describes God's creation in a completely different order to Genesis 1, man first then plants, then animals and birds, and lastly the woman. The fact Genesis starts off with two completely different orders of creation shows us that the point of the narratives isn't about God's timetable. Or you can ignore the plain meaning of the text in Genesis 2 and force it to fit Genesis 1 because you assume that Genesis 1 must be the literal.

In Psalm 90 we have another description of the creation, and Moses' own highly allegorical reading of the events in Genesis. In Genesis God said Adam would return to the dust, but in Psalm 90 it is God telling the sons of Adam to return to the dust Psalm 90:3 You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of Adam!" God's days in this study of Genesis and the creation are not like ours Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. Moses turn to the flood but it is a flood that sweeps us all away Psalm 90:5 You sweep them away as with a flood.

Proverbs 8 and Job 38 describe the creation through a different metaphor God as a builder building a house (or a temple), marking it out laying the foundations with the one called Wisdom at his side as a master workman.

in Psalm 104 we go back to Genesis again and this description follows the order of the days of Genesis 1. However it read the days of Genesis as a framework describing creation now. When God separated land and sea he created the springs of water for wild donkeys to drink, God causes grass to grow for livestock and plants for man to cultivate. God creates the moon to mark the season and the sun to know when to set, then the young lions creep out seeking their prey from God, in the morning Adam goes out to work and the lion sneak back to their dens. God creates the sea creatures and leviathan, but look, there is a ship going past. The psalmist goes on to say how God's creation is ongoing Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Yet he based his description of this ongoing creation the the days of Genesis.

Not only are there very different creation accounts, there are different interpretations of the creation accounts in the bible itself. The only one I cannot find is anybody interpreting the days literally.

No, God gave us one meaning concerning Genesis and about 100 verifications from other parts of scripture proving that He created the world in six literal 24 hr days & that the account of the things mentioned in Genesis actually happened as written. There are no other views that are acceptable in His sight.

Where does the bible say that? Where do any of the 100 verifications interpret the day of Genesis literally?

He expects every professing Christian to believe it for there is no scientific nor scriptural reason not to do so. This is what the first century Christians believed and so should we. The reason is that there is no 'evolution of the species' or long ages (millions or billions of years) taught in the Bible. More than that, after all things considered the available evidence points strongly towards the creation and/or flood of Noah and evolution simply does not exist and never did.

There is no mention of evolution, or heliocentrism, yet the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth we have today is much stronger than the church had for heliocentrism when it changed its interpretation of the geocentric passages.

Furthermore, those who have accepted the Darwinian lie in the attempt to make it compatible with the Bible have forced themselves into a corner as it concerns the Lord Jesus Christ and His family genealogy and any claim that He might have to the throne of David in the coming kingdom. Why? Because Luke 3 reveals His family, name by name back to Adam. If that lineage is not true according to Jewish law, it is not legal! So even if the people named in His family lineage each lived a thousand years (e.g. that's 77,000 yrs) it still would not cover the time demanded by the evolutionary time frame.

You are assuming Luke's purpose was to establish Jesus' claim to the throne of David, yet he describes the genealogy as what people 'supposed'. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... And if Jesus' claim to the throne of David depends on him being the son of Joseph, isn't that a bit of a problem?

But what do the TE's (most of them) do when this issue is brought up? They attack the Luke's accuracy along with Moses and the chronicles where the same lineage can be derived. It's unreal. Most of them have so little respect for scripture and hold it in such low esteem. The truth is, if they could find any support from scripture that the six-day creation account is not literal or that evolution was God's way of bringing about life on earth we would have no case. But they have neither. They erringly think that God waited until Darwin's time to educate the Christian world about the truth of origins.

What an enormous lie.

Best regards.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Exodus 20:11

He waited for Copernicus to teach us the earth goes round the sun. What is wrong with God allowing us to discover about his wonderful creation through science?

 

[Martyrs44]

Hi Philis and welcome to the Origins forum!

I hope you enjoy the discussions here.

You wrote in response to martyrs44:



May I offer some support for martyr's statement?

While scripure never explictly says that it is made of "ice", it does often describe the world as such - and "ice" is a pretty defensible idea, in the book of Ezekiel it is described as looking like ice.

For starters, in Genesis where it says God made "the sky", the work that has been translated as "sky" is better translated as "hard dome"Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17. It literally means "bowl beaten into shape by a hammer" - "raqiya".

This solid dome is put over the earth like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

As a TE, I myself don't think that these verses should be interpreted literally - but if one is to stick to a literal interpretation, then I'd have to side with martyrs44 on the "ice dome" idea.

Papias

Interesting, but rather than patronize papias for his very rare 'agreement' with us I will respond by saying that those doors and windows are probably supernatural...like:

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" Malachi 3:10.

Invisible but still real; still literal.

Just like...

'After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven'...Rev 4:1

Here the invisible became real, visible, and literal. Who can honestly deny it?

But my earlier statement matched Genesis 1;7

"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

The ice shield was under the expanse of the heavens above and between the oceans below.

 

[Papias]

Philis wrote:

Thanks but does that mean that the sun and stars were placed in the ice like Genesis 1 says? (I understand it's not actually your view)

If one were to stick to a literal interpretation, then yes, Gen 1 says the stars and such are inside the dome. Of course, that's physically impossible (no room - the sun is millions of times the size of the earth, and many stars are dozens of times the size of the sun, there are literally quadrillions of stars, etc - see also the verse in Rev about the stars being thrown down to land on the ground - same thing).

It seems to me that scripture is writen to be accessible to the first readers of it - the ancient hebrews, so it simply reflects what looks obvious. For instance - the stars "obviously" are smaller than the earth - just look up; the sun is "obviously" smaller than the earth - look at it; there is "obviously" a dome over head, that's why you can look up and over at it (it looks like we are in a dome); there is "obviously" water above the dome - that's why it looks blue when you look up at the dome, etc.

I don't think that the fact that it was written so as to be easily understood by the initial target audience as a reason to make up things that have no evidential support and wouldn't work - such as a real ice dome. What would it sit on? Blocking UV woundn't make people live longer - many people today live nearly their whole lives indoors.

Imagining a literal ice dome causes many problems without solving much if anything - problems of mechanical stregth, stability, chemistry, greenhouse heating, and many more. It's completely absurd without suspending much of God's physical laws.

Papias

 

[Philis]

But my earlier statement matched Genesis 1;7

"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

The ice shield was under the expanse of the heavens above and between the oceans below.

You last sentence wasn't clear to me sorry. Let me get this straight, is this the way that you think things were created?

Waters - Highest
Firmament with sun/moon/stars
Ice canopy
Atmosphere
Land/Sea - Lowest

Is that an accurate description of how you think it was made? If not, please write it out that way (from highest to lowest) so that it is clear to me. (And by "highest to lowest" I of course mean from the perspective of someone standing on the earth, of course since the earth is round "highest to lowest" could be misunderstood.)

 

[Assyrian]

So? The Bible nowhere teaches 'geocentrism'. Why is it even an issue except for the fact that God's attention seems to be totally centered on man...on earth?

..."traditional literal interpretation of the the geocentric passages "

Notice he gave you no scripture for this. There is no such teaching in scripture.

It was a short answer to a simple question so I didn't see the need to go into a detailed history of the the geocentric interpretation in the church. The most common passage that crops up again and again in the church fathers is Joshuas' long day which they interpreted literally when it says the sun stopped it means it really had been moving and didn't just appear to stop as creationists often read it today, but that it really stopped and moved again after the the miracle hurrying to the place it sets. Ecclesiastes 1:5 describes what happens the sun after goes down, Eccl 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. If you read the text literally it isn't the earth rotating that give us our day, it is the sun moving. This interpretation was never challenged throughout the history of the church until Copernicus showed us it was really the earth that went round the sun.

 

[Martyrs44]

Assyrian

Odd that, you objected to Philis mentioning you in the OP, yet here you are discussing me in the third person

I didn't make you the subject of a topic post. Furthermore she didn't ask you, she asked me the questions.

But I always treat seekers and perhaps sincere questioners different than seasoned debaters who are in constant, continual error and won't be corrected by any amount of evidence they are given, scriptural or otherwise. I've read enough of your posts by now to know that of you.

He certainly gave us multiple creation accounts telling the story in very different ways.

There is another one, right there, right off the bat. As far as I am concerned such a position is not true and an insult to the Holy Spirit who gave us ONE account and with no confusion about what He said. But any attempt to convince the likes of you in this matter is an effort in futility.

If you wish to know more of my positions on the issues then you have access to all I have said and whatever I post in the future. I assure you I will cover the bases as it might pertain to what else you said.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Since I'm a TE, I'll comment on my understanding of the YEC interpretation of the creation account.

YECs believe that there is one creation account. While TEs and OECs often suggest that there are two in the first chapters of Genesis and more elsewhere in Scripture, YECs reject this. Genesis 1 describes the overall framework of creation, and then Genesis 2:4-25 goes back to the sixth day of this account to provide more detail. The apparent contradictions in the order of creating humans, animals and vegetation are typically resolved through one of the following: (1) claiming that the creation of vegetation and animals in the earlier days left one barren spot on the earth that God later devoted special attention to as he created the humans, so the vegetation and animals created in Genesis 2 are different than those created in Genesis 1; (2) appealing to the NIV or updated ESV that occasionally use "had formed" in order to restructure the chronology of Genesis 2 to more closely match Genesis 1; or (3) suggesting that Genesis 2 uses a topical arrangement rather than a chronological arrangement, so there is no contradiction with the order of Genesis 1. The differences in style between the two chapters is taken to be inconsequential, or simply due to the second chapter focusing on humans while the first focuses on the entire universe.

As for the other creation passages (such as those in Psalm 104; Proverbs 8; Job 38-41), they have little worth, since they are written in poetry. They cannot be used to show that an interpretation of the prose creation account in Genesis is faulty.

YECs typically read Genesis 1:1 as confirming that God created everything out of nothing. It is not a summary statement or a setting for the following account, but the first creative act on the first day. A main purpose of day 1 is to make clear that literal, 24-hour days are being used. During this day, either a temporary light source is created or God's light is made physical. Regardless, this light will be replaced on day 4 with the sun and moon we are familiar with today. The repeated refrain about "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day" are not read as sequential events, but rather as a way of repeatedly defining the length of a day. The meaning is akin to "and a morning and an evening together made the ___ day".

Day 2 either sees the creation of a literal firmament that separates the waters (but a firmament that would be destroyed with the flood), or is just describing the sky using the language of appearances. If the latter, when God places the lights into the firmament, it just means that from our perspective we see the lights in the sky.

Day 3 describes the creation of plants. The YEC interpretation depends on the method used to harmonize Genesis 1 with Genesis 2:5. If that verse is read as meaning the plants had not yet sprouted, then day 3 is about the planting of plants. In this view, when God "sees" the plants at the end of day 3, God is seeing what they will later become after they sprout on day 6. Alternatively, plants cover all the dry ground on day 3 except for the place where God will plant the garden, which remains barren. Or, Eden does contain wild plants, but is absent of any plants that require human cultivation (i.e. "plants of the field").

Day 4 describes the creation of sun, moon and stars. The terminology of "ruling" is just a figure of speech. The purpose of the luminaries is to mark time and seasons and to separate light from dark, but these functions do not begin with them. They merely take over from the temporary light source created on day 1 that is now replaced.

Day 5 sees the creation of birds and sea creatures, or alternatively, all birds except for those that will later be created near Eden.

Day 6 continues with animal creation, detailing the land animals. When the plants and animals are described as "according to their kinds" it indicates the fixity of species and an impenetrable reproductive barrier between different kinds of organisms. Where Genesis 1 describes the creation of humans together, Genesis 2 provides more detail, showing that the man is created first and later the woman. Further, the freedom to eat from all trees (1:29) is clarified in the second chapter with one exception (2:16-17). The giving of plants to humans and land animals for food means that the humans and land animals only eat plants at this time. (The sea creatures, since they are not given any food source, are perhaps without a need for food.)

Since all creatures were originally designed to be vegan, some YECs choose to aim for that ideal, or at least for vegetarianism. While flesh was provided for food as a concession to sin, and divorce was provided as a recourse in certain marriages, these do not overturn God's creation ideals for vegetarianism and marriage.

YECs believe that a literal reading of the creation account is confirmed by the two references to the days in Exodus (20:11; 31:17). Some believe that Exodus 20:11 in particular was written directly by God's finger and is therefore a higher level of Scripture than the rest of the Bible. Others, aware that Deuteronomy 5 recounts all that God wrote on the tablets without reference to creation, do not make this claim, but still see Exodus as confirming the literal time frame of Genesis 1. If the Sabbath rest for the Israelites is a literal day where they are literally refreshed, so too must be God's rest in Genesis 2:1-3 be a literal day where God is literally refreshed (Ex. 31:17). Some, however, would qualify that the duration of the rest is literal, but the nature of that rest is not literally refreshment, since God did not actually get tired. On the basis of the tie between the Sabbath command and creation, many creationists adhere to continuing observance of the Sabbath on Saturday: God rested on the seventh day, not the first day. Further, God established this at creation, not merely later when giving the law to Israel, and this makes it an enduring mandate.

Among YECs who are not Seventh-Day Adventists, the contemporary application of the creation accounts is more limited. It does not reveal what we should eat or when we should rest. The key application seems to be that it teaches us which so-called scientific advances should be opposed. The purpose of Genesis 1-2 is for God to reveal how and when he created in literal, historical terms. Through this, God proves that he is truly God by telling us things that only God could know. Insofar as modern science confirms these details, it establishes that God was trustworthy in revealing thousands of years ago what humans are only discovering now. Where modern science does not provide confirmation, it is to be rejected for changing God's truth to a lie.

And that's, in a nutshell, how I understand the YEC interpretation of the creation account.

 

[Martyrs44]

You last sentence wasn't clear to me sorry. Let me get this straight, is this the way that you think things were created?

Waters - Highest
Firmament with sun/moon/stars
Ice canopy
Atmosphere
Land/Sea - Lowest

Is that an accurate description of how you think it was made? If not, please write it out that way (from highest to lowest) so that it is clear to me. (And by "highest to lowest" I of course mean from the perspective of someone standing on the earth, of course since the earth is round "highest to lowest" could be misunderstood.)

???

Yes. But it is difficult to know where those boudaries begin and end.