Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[Floodnut]

He tells us the truth about how the heavens were made in creation. He tells us the truth about how to make it to heaven in scripture. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Have you never heard of General Revelation and Special Revelation?

Please don't start in with such inflamatory retorts. Lets keep peacable here.
Jesus tells us about how the heavens were made in the same scriptures that tell us how to make heaven. You do not accept the simple sense of language in what the Scirpture says about how the heavens are made, but somehow you ARE able to continue to have faith in what is says quite simply and plainly about how to make heaven. I admire you, that you are able to continue in that faith.

 

[gluadys]

And if you think Genesis 2 teaches a 1 day creation of all things, I can see why you have troubles understanding Genesis.

"In the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had sprung up....." Gen 2:4b-5a

That is the beginning of the second creation account. There is no indication of another day occurring anywhere in chapter 2 and for all we know all of chapter 3 also happened on the same day.

If you change the interpretation of Genesis so that it does not coincide with the authors intent, you have put your own meaning into the text.

Right. That is why I try very hard to avoid that and to discover the actual intent of the author. No one can claim to fully know the intent of a person long dead, but we can definitely rule out some things since they were not discovered yet e.g. that he thought the earth as a sphere, and we can make a good case for other things since they are part of the common culture and world-view of the time e.g. that the firmament is a solid structure.

Atleast you can be honest enough to state that you think the author of Genesis is wrong about the structure of the universe. Since, God is the one who inspired what is written in Genesis, you believe God is wrong.

The author did not know the true structure of the universe. God, as Creator, did know. But he permitted the author to use the description of his time, as the bible is not intended to be a message about science, but about God.

Actually, many ancient Hebrews believed the firmament was a solid structure and that is where modern day creationists got this idea.

And let me make this clear, I don't think TEs are the only ones who dismiss an authors intended meaning, I see yecs doing the same thing on other passages within the Bible.

As I stated, the firmament is not some new teaching invented by modern day creationists.

Indeed it is not. It was the near universal pre-scientific view and is found in the mythologies of many ancient peoples, not just the Hebrews. The details differ. In Babylonian myth Marduk makes the firmament from the upper half of his mother Tiamat's body after he kills her. In Maori myth one of the children of the Sky Father and the Earth Mother (who are locked in procreative embrace) forcibly separates them by standing on the earth and pushing the sky up on his powerful shoulders. In Greek mythology, Atlas also holds the sky up on his shoulders. The concept of the sky being a solid structure (firmament) was the concept of all the peoples of the time. Even later, after it was understood that the earth is a sphere, the concept of the firmament did not disappear. It just changed form into the crystal spheres of the heavens in the Ptolemaic scheme of the cosmos.

So it is only in about the last 400 years, a very brief part of human history, that we have become aware that there is no firmament and the sky is actually an immense depth of space.

As far as the movement of the earth, where does the Bible say this doesn't happen? I would hope that you could actually give real examples, within context, knowing full well what the author intended to say. Not some Psalms that is poetic or a passage used to speak figuratively.

You think the form of a text decides whether or not it is figurative? Hardly so.

Out of the mud two strangers came
And caught me splitting wood in the yard,
And one of them put me off my aim
By hailing cheerily "Hit them hard!"
I knew pretty well why he had dropped behind
And let the other go on a way.
I knew pretty well what he had in mind:
He wanted to take my job for pay.

http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm

This is poetry. Do you see any metaphors there, any similes, any allegory? Is it not a simple description?

I haven't checked Frost's biography, but it is even possible that this poem was based on an actual real-life experience.

By the same token, something written in prose may be entirely figurative. Pilgrim's Progress is written as a prose narrative, yet it is allegorical throughout.

The same in the psalms. Each psalm, each statement, needs to be checked out. It is true of poetry in any age that metaphors, figures, and ordinary literal statments will be mixed together.

Try these:

Let the floods clap their hands and let the hills sing together for joy. Ps. 98:8

No one, then or now, would mistake this for a literal statement. It is a metaphor that anthropomorphizes the floods and the hills, giving them human qualities.

By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept... Ps. 137:1

Still poetry, but this time no figure at all. Rather a description of the actual experience of many Judeans in exile.

So you cannot use the "it's a poem" argument to say that the Psalmists did not intend these descriptions to be literal.

The world is firmly established: it shall never be moved. Ps. 96:10

You set the earth on its foundations do that it shall never be moved. Ps. 104: 5

You have established the earth and it stands fast Ps. 119:90

On one note, I would agree with you that throughout the years many have made the Bible say what they wanted it to say. Today, it isn't just TEs who I think do this, but many others, including yecs, oecs on different issues. I have spent many hours debating fellow yecs on other issues that I think they are completely wrong on.

Good for you. It is good to see that some creationists really do care about what the author is saying instead of reaching for any passing excuse to "update" the text.

For me, this isn't about upholding a yec position, I don't care about that. What I care about is Truth, God's Truth that I believe is within the Bible. I believe in treating this with care and indepth study. I don't just disagree with TEs on this issue, I disagree with many yecs on other issues. So, I hope this is clear that I don't care about a yec position, but Biblical Truth.

Then we have the same motivation. I am not bound to a TE position. But I am bound to what I see as truth. Evolution, in my view, is God's Truth, just as much as scripture is. If I were convinced that it is not, I would spend no time defending it or a TE position.

I disagree that Paul is speaking about once you accept Jesus as your Savior, there is nothing you can do to lose the Salvation He has given you.

He is not. He is speaking about how the teaching that we are free from the Law has been misrepresented to mean we can do anything at all, including sin all the more so that grace may abound all the more.

You made virtually the same statements about the doctrine of eternal security. e.g.

This is a most dangerous view point, in my opinion. That one can truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, then go ahead and commit as many sins as you wish, because God won't judge you accordingly to these sins, since the believer believes Jesus has already paid for them.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, no need to change your life, or do anything different. Sin as much as you wish, just believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God Lord of all."

That is just as much a misrepresentation of that doctrine as the misrepresentation Paul was correcting.

For one who is a TE and believes that Adam died spiritually, after he was with God, your position of eternal security doesn't make much sense.

Adam did not need salvation until after the Fall. Did God give him the grace of salvation when he needed it? Then, if God chose to save him, his salvation was secure.

Look to the following verses and explain how eternal security is true:

Ezekiel 3:20, 33:13, 33:18
Romans 6:16, 8:13
Galatians 5:19-21; 6:8-9
James 1:14-16; 5:19-20

It is not clear to me that any of them have anything to do with eternal security. That does not seem to be their focus.

I don't intend to continue this part of the conversation, because it is apologetics and belongs in that forum. Also, there is no way ultimately to settle questions like these. When the most learned theologians have not resolved this question in centuries, you and I will not either. So there is no point in arguing about it.

 

[Floodnut]

Oh I definitely believe God can and has told us some of the essential facts of nature. In nature itself.

He has also communicated in scripture some essential facts about nature which nature itself cannot tell us e.g. that it is his creation, that he is the only creator, that he loves his creation and considers it good, that he created us to care for it and so on.

At the end of each of the six days it was good. And at the end of the sixth day additionally it was very good. Now it is not good. It is in the hand of the wicked one, it is subject to vanity and awaits the fulfilment of redemption. Adam ate the fruit of the tree and the world is now under judgment and curse.

 

[gluadys]

Please don't start in with such inflamatory retorts. Lets keep peacable here.
Jesus tells us about how the heavens were made in the same scriptures that tell us how to make heaven. You do not accept the simple sense of language in what the Scirpture says about how the heavens are made, but somehow you ARE able to continue to have faith in what is says quite simply and plainly about how to make heaven. I admire you, that you are able to continue in that faith.

Inflammatory? Please don't see insults where none are intended.

 

[Floodnut]

I made the stupid error of attempting an extensive answer on-line and lost two hours work.

Will try again tomorrow, with a word processing program.

I admire you hard work and effort, as I too have written many lengthy essays, to post here. I have found my work largely unappreciated. It seems the format is more condusive to hit and run comments, and "sound bite" material, short pithy comments. Isn't it a pity? We live in an age where people are pretty much incapable of reading much more than a gum wrapper.

 

[gluadys]

No, nature, the creation, and the scientific understanding of the natural world does speak on the subject of sins and atoning death and resurrection. According to the same interpreters of the "revelation" of nature who give us evolution, resurrection did not happen.

Not true. Nature and science say nothing about miracles. That includes claiming that miracles never happen. Science does not and cannot say that the resurrection did not happen. It can only say that if it happened, it was not by a natural process. And we can agree with that for we believe it was a miracle, a direct action of God, and not by nature that Christ was resurrected.


Don't confuse science with the philosophy of naturalism. The philosophy of naturalism affirms that nature is all there is and that everything without exception happens by natural process. So naturalism denies that miracles happen.

Science does not affirm that. It only affirms that what science explores is nature and natural process. Science does not have anything to say about miracles, but it does not deny that miracles happen.

 

[Floodnut]

Yet more spiritual arrogance I see. Stop telling other Christians they're not as spiritual as you are - it's immature.

arty, are you trying to shut down this thread? Please refrain from such flaming. You don't need to call someone arrogant. Just discuss the substance of what he said. His demeanor and character really cannot be that well discerned in this print only media. Please don't call people immature either, it really comes across as if you are in some kind of superior position, and I know you don't want to convey that.

 

[Floodnut]

Sorry - but everytime you start "warning" people of the so-called conseqence of not taking the Bible literally I will accuse you of arrogance. Because that is what it is. You are not my authority.

settle. be calm. Just ignore him, but don't call him arrogant even if you are sure that he is. Although I am not your authority, I know that the moderators will shut down a thread that crumbles into the trading of comments on character.

 

[statrei]

Why not take the bible for what it says? Well, you go tell everyone that your God kills children.

One has to take the Bible for what it teaches, not for what it says.

 

[Floodnut]

Did you post that twice for good measure?

Arty, I wasn't warning anyone with the post you quoted. I was stating my view.

If you want to point out every post I make as being arrogant or whatever derogatory remark you wish, it is ok with me. My apologies if that is how you take everything I say. It isn't how I meant it to be taken, but I suppose what I mean doesn't really matter.

Somewhere in all of this you should realize that responsibility of interpreting what I say lies on you as well.

Isn't it you who says my interpretation of the Bible is fallible? Could your interpretation of what I say be fallible as well?

Anyways, if you feel you know me so well to state what I am thinking, then please continue with your accusations.

I will try better to word my statements so you don't feel so angry towards me.

Critias, you have much good to say, but don't respond in kind to Arty. See, now you said he is angry. You really can't tell that here in this "print only" media, and even if he is angry just ignore it and stick with the discussion. This is the way threads get shut down. The TEs and evolutionists accuse the YECs of arrogance, or ignorance, or being unscientific, then the YECs respond in kind and next thing you know the original thread topic is destroyed and another thread gets shut down.
Just discuss the topic of the approach to Christian Scriptures.

 

[Floodnut]

Not true. Nature and science say nothing about miracles. That includes claiming that miracles never happen. Science does not and cannot say that the resurrection did not happen. It can only say that if it happened, it was not by a natural process. And we can agree with that for we believe it was a miracle, a direct action of God, and not by nature that Christ was resurrected.


Don't confuse science with the philosophy of naturalism. The philosophy of naturalism affirms that nature is all there is and that everything without exception happens by natural process. So naturalism denies that miracles happen.

Science does not affirm that. It only affirms that what science explores is nature and natural process. Science does not have anything to say about miracles, but it does not deny that miracles happen.

Science denies the miracle of Creation, that the entire universe was miraculously brought into existence by the Word of God in six days about six thousand years ago. It also denies that Jesus turned water into wine.

 

[gluadys]

Science denies the miracle of Creation, that the entire universe was miraculously brought into existence by the Word of God in six days about six thousand years ago. It also denies that Jesus turned water into wine.

Because there is no evidence that creation occurred in this way and a great deal of evidence that it didn't. Why would God put that evidence in the world he created if he actually created the world some other way?

Science does not deny that Jesus turned water into wine. There is no evidence either way on that miracle. So there is nothing science can say about it.

 

[Critias]

Unless you are using the word "intent" in a way that is unfamiliar to me, no, his intent is not wrong. I don't think he ever intended his six-(actually seven-)day framework to be chronological. I do think he did intend his reference to the firmament to be understood as it was in his time. This is not wrong intent though. This is a matter of being set in a particular time and place in history and having to express his intent through the cultural norms and limited knowledge of that time and place.

Then, when the writer of Genesis 1 goes on to talk about what was created on what day, you don't think his intent was to say what was created on what day? The framework interpretation is really just inadequate explanation. It is nothing more than trying to make modern views and ancient writing agree.

You are pulling a Razzelflabben on me.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1582987-for-razzelflabben-lets-communicate-some-more.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1931683-the-quiet-thread-split-post.html

It never ceases to amaze me how she (and now you) can read my post, somehow turn it inside out as you digest it and then tell me I am saying/doing the precise opposite of what I have been saying/doing.

I apologize, but that was what it seemed to me that you were saying.

A major theme of all my posts on interpretation is that we must understand the times in which the biblical books were written. We must understand their world-view in order to understand what they were writing. The author of Genesis, like all people of his time and for two millennia after his time, had no inkling of what we call outer space, but believed the sky was a solid structure a finite distance away from the earth and that the sun, moon and stars were fixed to or embedded in that solid structure.



This was covered by other posters.



But scientists who are Christian agree with these interpretations. They find that when they do the same sort of study or conduct the same sort of experiment they get the same results. So it is not a matter of opinion that these interpretations are correct. It is a matter of observation and experience. Reality, after all, is the same for everyone no matter what their bias or pre-suppositions are.

And there are many Christian scientists who disagree with these people. There are also over 400 resepected scientists who have signed a document stating they believe that Darwinian evolution is not the best answer we have. These are not Christian scientists either.

But I have never said that. You have put those words into my mouth. They are your words, not mine.

You said you don't see why scientists need to give God the credit for creating when they interpret the evidence. By this statement, you are supporting God not receiving the credit.

No I don't understand. A trickster god is common to many pagan and animistic world-views: Anansi in West Africa, Raven among the Native tribes of North-West US & Canada, Loki in Norse mythology, etc. I don't know how trusting that God is not such a deity implies judgment.

You, as many here have created a statement that if six day creation and a young earth are true, God is a liar and/or deceptive. Basically, you are saying if your understanding that you have received from scientists interpretation of evidence is wrong, it is God who is at fault. You are judging God, simple as that. You don't judge yourself or scientists if you are all wrong, you judge God by claiming He is a liar/deceptive.

You try and veil it with a statement that since you know He isn't a liar/deceptive that your understanding is true and correct. Either way, you are still claiming if you are wrong, it isn't your fault or scientists, it is God who is fault and is being deceptive or lying. So, yes, you have already judged God.

"Many" is not "all". I see little similarity between the Catholicism of Miller, the Anglicanism of Polkinghorne, the Pentecostalism of Bakker, etc. on one hand and the militant atheism of Dawkins on the other. And what about Jewish or Buddhist scientists? or even moderate agnostics such as Gould and Eldredge, who, though they are not theists, don't agree philosophically with Dawkins either.



I didn't say "quickly". A better term would be "inexorably".



Scientific intepretations are not just opinions. They are based on observation and experience. Scientists don't easily trust anything that is based on only one study or one experiment. It is necessary for others who do similar studies or similar experiments to get similar results. Also there is the role of prediction. A good theory predicts observations which have not been made yet and suggests what to look for. If subsequent studies turn up what was predicted, there is more than opinion at work here.

With the lies that have been within science, particular one for 30 years, you want to claim that scientists don't easily trust experiments or studies?

When logical arguments lead to false conclusions it is because the premises are wrong. When true premises lead to false conclusions it is because the reasoning contains a logicial fallacy. When the premises are true and the logic is not flawed, the conclusion will be true. It can be pretty difficult at times to avoid wrong -- or at least incomplete-- premises and also logical fallacies. But that is why science is a public quest for knowledge. What one person misses another will detect. What one generation takes for granted another will question.

And that is the heart of the matter I believe. Evolution's common descent's premise is wrong.

I don't put my faith in science. I put my faith in God. And as I have already pointed out, my beliefs have not changed.

Faith simply means trust and you do trust scientists interpretation of the evidence that claims the evolutionary theory, do you not?

No, I said "many", not "most". But even if most scientists are not Christian, that doesn't mean that most are atheists. There are non-Christian believers too such as Jews, Muslims, etc. Nor is there any hidden agenda to prove Christianity (or religion in general) wrong. Most atheists don't care if you believe in God as long as you don't require that they do. Very few become promoters of atheism.

And that is why there are so many atheists on this board arguing against Christianity? And the atheists that have removed prayer from schools? And the atheist who is trying to have the name God removed off of all radio and tv stations? The Ten Commandments in courts? A large Cross on private property that received a court order to remove it because others could see it? I don't buy that atheist really don't care about others believing in God.

That to me is like saying Satan doesn't care if you follow Christ.

Right on all counts. The earth and heavens will fade away. So will the scriptures, for when we see God face-to-face, there will be no more use for them. But the Word of God which is the source of both creation and the scriptures will remain, for it is eternal. The Word of God is part of the very nature of God. We know the Word of God as the second person of the Trinity and as the agent of creation.

The Words within Scripture will never pass away. Why? Because Jesus said so, those are His words that He has given to men to write about Him.

It was Jesus who said My Word will never pass away and I don't think He was speaking of Himself, but rather about His Words. Especially since He said not one jot or tittle.

How, when, where -- these are all questions that deal with the mechanics of creation. Who and why are the questions that deal with the metaphysics of creation. The bible focuses on these as they are essential to our relationship with God.

So, are you denying that the Genesis speaks of when things were created on what day? Are you deny where God put these things that He created? Are you deny that God created by His Word, the how?

I am not claiming any errors. I am simply claiming that the author used a week-long framework for other than historical, chronological reasons.

And the reasons the animals of the sea were created on day five instead of another day? The reason why cattle was created on the sixth day and not another day? What was the authors purpose of each thing being created on a certain day, why not mix up the chronological order? It could have been changed and still keep a framework idea. So, why this order? What was the authors intent for this order?

Every test that has been thought of so far. No it does not assume there is no more evidence to be found. All scientific conclusions are understood to be based on known evidence, not undiscovered evidence. New evidence, when found, is a new test of the theory. There has been a lot of new evidence relating to evolution found since 1859, so there have been many new tests of the theory. So far no evidence has falsified or even weakened the theory. In fact new evidence has tended to strengthen the theory. We are much more assured of its accuracy today than Darwin himself ever could have been.

I see this nothing more than when I decide I like a certain car and all the sudden I see it everywhere. I did not see it this much before I decided I liked the car, but now I see it everywhere. Point... we see what we want to see and by that we will prove what we want to prove.

But you have, since you claim it is a serious alternative to the scientific chronology.

I have not claimed that a six day creation of the Bible is a modern day teaching. It is God's teaching from the days of old.

 

[Critias]

"In the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had sprung up....." Gen 2:4b-5a

Thank you for showing me how you pull Scripture out of context. We ought to be looking at this within its context.

That is the beginning of the second creation account. There is no indication of another day occurring anywhere in chapter 2 and for all we know all of chapter 3 also happened on the same day.

You seem to have missed Genesis 2:1-4. Notice what Genesis 2:1-3 says:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By thehttp://studylight.org/desk/?l=en&qu...1&new=1&nb=ge&ng=1&nnc=%A0%3E%3E%A0&ncc=1#R41 seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

I don't see how you can miss this before you read Genesis 2:4-5.

Genesis 2:4-5
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

First off, notice the phrase "in the day" we have talked about this figurative phrase that doesn't mean 1 day. It was very common at this time for one to write a brief summary of what took place and then a more detailed piece that focuses in on something more important within the brief summary. We can see this in other writings that we have from this same time period.

Right. That is why I try very hard to avoid that and to discover the actual intent of the author. No one can claim to fully know the intent of a person long dead, but we can definitely rule out some things since they were not discovered yet e.g. that he thought the earth as a sphere, and we can make a good case for other things since they are part of the common culture and world-view of the time e.g. that the firmament is a solid structure.


The author did not know the true structure of the universe. God, as Creator, did know. But he permitted the author to use the description of his time, as the bible is not intended to be a message about science, but about God.

And that would be why God inspired what is written. Isaiah did not know of his own accord of the prophecies he gave. Instead God told him of these things to come. Likewise, God told the author of Genesis of times past.

You think the form of a text decides whether or not it is figurative? Hardly so.

Out of the mud two strangers came
And caught me splitting wood in the yard,
And one of them put me off my aim
By hailing cheerily "Hit them hard!"
I knew pretty well why he had dropped behind
And let the other go on a way.
I knew pretty well what he had in mind:
He wanted to take my job for pay.

http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm

This is poetry. Do you see any metaphors there, any similes, any allegory? Is it not a simple description?

And you are using modern day poetry to back up what ancient poetry is?

I haven't checked Frost's biography, but it is even possible that this poem was based on an actual real-life experience.

By the same token, something written in prose may be entirely figurative. Pilgrim's Progress is written as a prose narrative, yet it is allegorical throughout.

The same in the psalms. Each psalm, each statement, needs to be checked out. It is true of poetry in any age that metaphors, figures, and ordinary literal statments will be mixed together.

The Psalms are poetic and also tell truth at the same time. I wasn't claiming that truth was not proclaimed within a type of writing. Rather, poetry uses figurative language to get the meaning across and is not intended to be taken literally. Example would be saying I watched the sunset.

If you have ever used the phrase sun rise or sunset, then you must be a geocentrist because that is a TE claim of the Bible.

Try these:

Let the floods clap their hands and let the hills sing together for joy. Ps. 98:8

No one, then or now, would mistake this for a literal statement. It is a metaphor that anthropomorphizes the floods and the hills, giving them human qualities.

By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept... Ps. 137:1

Still poetry, but this time no figure at all. Rather a description of the actual experience of many Judeans in exile.

So you cannot use the "it's a poem" argument to say that the Psalmists did not intend these descriptions to be literal.

The world is firmly established: it shall never be moved. Ps. 96:10

You set the earth on its foundations do that it shall never be moved. Ps. 104: 5

You have established the earth and it stands fast Ps. 119:90

But you still have not presented your claim that the Bible teaches about an earth that does not move. Instead you went off on a tangent that is relevent, but does not answer my question.

Good for you. It is good to see that some creationists really do care about what the author is saying instead of reaching for any passing excuse to "update" the text.



Then we have the same motivation. I am not bound to a TE position. But I am bound to what I see as truth. Evolution, in my view, is God's Truth, just as much as scripture is. If I were convinced that it is not, I would spend no time defending it or a TE position.

I don't see how you can equate the Bible and evolution. Evolution(common descent) is man's interpretation of the evidence. The Bible is God's teachings and we aren't even talking about an intepretation of the Bible but the Bible itself. I just don't see where you think you can equate man's interpretation of the earth with God's teachings of Himself and what He has done. We aren't even talking about men inspired by God within science.

He is not. He is speaking about how the teaching that we are free from the Law has been misrepresented to mean we can do anything at all, including sin all the more so that grace may abound all the more.

You made virtually the same statements about the doctrine of eternal security. e.g.



That is just as much a misrepresentation of that doctrine as the misrepresentation Paul was correcting.



Adam did not need salvation until after the Fall. Did God give him the grace of salvation when he needed it? Then, if God chose to save him, his salvation was secure.



It is not clear to me that any of them have anything to do with eternal security. That does not seem to be their focus.

I don't intend to continue this part of the conversation, because it is apologetics and belongs in that forum. Also, there is no way ultimately to settle questions like these. When the most learned theologians have not resolved this question in centuries, you and I will not either. So there is no point in arguing about it.

Agreed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And the reasons the animals of the sea were created on day five instead of another day? The reason why cattle was created on the sixth day and not another day? What was the authors purpose of each thing being created on a certain day, why not mix up the chronological order? It could have been changed and still keep a framework idea. So, why this order? What was the authors intent for this order?

that is the heart of FI, first God creates the realm then He fills it as a demonstration of His care and providence.
see:
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/framework.gif

...

 

[Critias]

that is the heart of FI, first God creates the realm then He fills it as a demonstration of His care and providence.
see:
http://blueletterbible.org/faq/framework.gif

...

Why weren't the sea animals created on day six with the land animals? Why did the author express that they were created on day five?

 

[Floodnut]

Because there is no evidence that creation occurred in this way and a great deal of evidence that it didn't. Why would God put that evidence in the world he created if he actually created the world some other way?

Science does not deny that Jesus turned water into wine. There is no evidence either way on that miracle. So there is nothing science can say about it.

There is no evidence that a man can be dead for three days and then return to life, there is a great deal of evidence that returning from death is imposssible, and there is a great deal of evidence that water cannot become wine.
The same science that asserts Evolutionism and rejects the simple biblical account of Creation also rejects any validity to any miracle at any time performed by anyone. You can't have it two ways and be consistent. Conservative Bible believers who take the simple grammatical historical sense, as well as diehard evolutionists know well the logical conclusion of the illogical approach of taking the MIRACLE of Creation as non-literal and then trying to take the Miracles of the life of Christ as Literal.

 

[Critias]

Critias, you have much good to say, but don't respond in kind to Arty. See, now you said he is angry. You really can't tell that here in this "print only" media, and even if he is angry just ignore it and stick with the discussion. This is the way threads get shut down. The TEs and evolutionists accuse the YECs of arrogance, or ignorance, or being unscientific, then the YECs respond in kind and next thing you know the original thread topic is destroyed and another thread gets shut down.
Just discuss the topic of the approach to Christian Scriptures.

Good point, thanks for the kind correction and uplifting statement.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why weren't the sea animals created on day six with the land animals? Why did the author express that they were created on day five?

look at the picture i linked to.
day 2 God creates the kingdoms of the air and sea
on the parallel day-day 5 God fills those kingdoms with their inhabitants.
land kingdom created day 3- filled day 6

2 parallel triads. not to teach the scientific modern notion of order(as in clades) but the more important idea of God's order, provision for, and Providence over creation.

the days of the week are polemic, they are directed at the chaos and disorder that human beings see in the world, that all other creation stories of that time dwelled on. the creation is not disorderly, it is God's and reflects His majesty and forethought in planning. the creation week is a put down of the egyptian and mespotamian creation stories that have the gods party the world into existence with no thought or foresight. God is saying that He rules and creates voluntarily and it reflects His being but is continguent and radically reliant of Him for everything.

that is the big point, not that birds predate land animals.


....

 

[Critias]

look at the picture i linked to.
day 2 God creates the kingdoms of the air and sea
on the parallel day-day 5 God fills those kingdoms with their inhabitants.
land kingdom created day 3- filled day 6

2 parallel triads. not to teach the scientific modern notion of order(as in clades) but the more important idea of God's order, provision for, and Providence over creation.

the days of the week are polemic, they are directed at the chaos and disorder that human beings see in the world, that all other creation stories of that time dwelled on. the creation is not disorderly, it is God's and reflects His majesty and forethought in planning. the creation week is a put down of the egyptian and mespotamian creation stories that have the gods party the world into existence with no thought or foresight. God is saying that He rules and creates voluntarily and it reflects His being but is continguent and radically reliant of Him for everything.

that is the big point, not that birds predate land animals.


....

So chronology does matter then?

Why didn't God create the land kingdom on day 2 and filled it on day 5 instead of the sea and air animals? And the sea and air created on day 3 and filled on day 6?

Why this specific order? We can reorder it and still keep a framework theory, but why this specific order?

And how does the framework theory suggest that God did not create in six days?