Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[Metal Minister]

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

My point behind this thread is not to attack evolutionists, and I in no way think that Christians who believe in evolution are somehow not still saved. My point is to discuss theologicaly the creation as stated in the bible, and where macro-evolution is supposed to fit.

That being said let me clarify something. No one denies that variations among the kinds (sometimes called micro-evolution) happens. It's demonstrable, testable, and provable. Macro-evo, tries to piggy back off of micro-evo's evidence to seem possible. Now, without getting into a scientific debate on whether macro-evo is true or not, I instead want to focus on where in scripture old EOC's get their proof.

I would ask only one other thing, if you do not believe in creation in any form, ( aka atheist) please refrain from this discussion. As I said this is not a scientific discussion, but a theological one. Thank you.

 

[ptomwebster]

Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

....

4th reason: They have a different understanding from Scripture.

 

[Metal Minister]

Taking the bible, as it is written, where would someone get the idea for macro-evo? Remember, until the 1800's the bible was translated as reffering to six literal 24 hour days. After the invention of evolution people began to warp the original view in a supposed effort to explain what science had supposedly discovered, and to keep the bible relevant. Yet we are still seeing evidence of a young earth, and that God's word is still true. What scripture could be taken to say that God used macro-evo and billions of years?

 

[NGC 6712]

Yet we are still seeing evidence of a young earth,

There is no such evidence. The evidence that exists falsifies a young Earth.

 

[Papias]

Metal Minister wrote:

Remember, until the 1800's the bible was translated as reffering to six literal 24 hour days. After the invention of evolution people began to warp the original view in a supposed effort to explain what science had supposedly discovered, and to keep the bible relevant.

Simply and demonstrably false. MM, are you a minister and still unaware that there where plenty of early Christians, even prominent ones, who did not agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

On the other hand, there are plenty of real examples where our understanding and interpretation of the various Bibles have changed in light of science, such as the cause of disease (the Bibles only give supernatural causes if a cause is given, never germs), or the origin and age of languages, or the idea that the earth is round (described as flat in the Bibles).

Using God's other revelation (the natural world) to help interpret his written revelation is hardly new - you yourself do it all the time. I don't see why God would want us to ignore the glory of one relevation when looking at another.

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

1) I can't speak for the USA, but in the UK evolution is not taught until A2 (the second year of A-levels). Students by this time are in Year 12, and are 17-18 years old. So we cannot say belief in evolution is because of educational indoctrination.

Speaking personally, I did not take Genesis literally even when I was a child, and I frequently went to church. Most of my knowledge of evolution came from children's magazines and television.

2) Although most people (including atheists) see no problem with believing in both God and evolution, a lot of people who have a problem with religion dislike theistic evolutionists too. Richard Dawkins for example. So unfortunately we aren't free from ridicule either.

And of course, many YEC aren't keen on theistic evolutionists either.

3) Death is Genesis was spiritual, rather than literal. Indeed it's very difficult to interpret later books in the Bible without taking this position.

I would ask only one other thing, if you do not believe in creation in any form, ( aka atheist) please refrain from this discussion. As I said this is not a scientific discussion, but a theological one. Thank you.

Non-Christians cannot post in this particular section.

I love your username by the way.

 

[Metal Minister]

There is no such evidence. The evidence that exists falsifies a young Earth.

I didn't want to start a scientific debate, but the evidence I'm speaking of is:
Receding Moon
Oil Pressure
Shrinking Sun
Oldest living thing only roughly 4500 years old
Helium In Our Atmosphere
Short Period Comets
Earth's Magnetic Field
DNA Found In Supposedly 165 myo Dino Bones
C14 levels In Earth's Atmosphere
Salt Content of The Dead Sea
Eve's Mitochondrial DNA
Rapid Mountain Uplift
Etc, etc, etc,etc
Now, please back to the theological aspect, because the most important part is to bring people to the foot of the Cross.

 

[Metal Minister]

Metal Minister wrote:

Simply and demonstrably false. MM, are you a minister and still unaware that there where plenty of early Christians, even prominent ones, who did not agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
**********
While there may have been some, the vast majority beloved it literally, otherwise how would you be able to take any part literally? Especially the part involving salvation
**********

On the other hand, there are plenty of real examples where our understanding and interpretation of the various Bibles have changed in light of science, such as the cause of disease (the Bibles only give supernatural causes if a cause is given, never germs), or the origin and age of languages, or the idea that the earth is round (described as flat in the Bibles).
**********
Ok, major disagreement here. Cause of disease is not only discussed, but the proper treatment of is discussed throughout Leviticus. It's mentioned for people to be isolated when a disease or leprosy was found, and how to determine if it was leprosy or not. The old testament is full of examples. There is only one example (supposedly) of the bible claiming the earth is flat, and multiple instances of it stating the earth is round.
**********

Using God's other revelation (the natural world) to help interpret his written revelation is hardly new - you yourself do it all the time. I don't see why God would want us to ignore the glory of one relevation when looking at another.

Papias

**********
Not sure what you mean here.

 

[ChristianT]

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

I simply "believe" in evolution because it is similar to the theory of gravity and nothing in the Bible inherently contradicts it.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

Stickz n' stones, brother Yes, even from YECs

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

was that the verse where Adam ate the fruit and he lived much longer? How do you not read a contradiction expecting the intro of literal death and Adam living longer than God said he would? "For when you eat the fruit, [not before, not after] you will surely die*"

My point behind this thread is not to attack evolutionists, and I in no way think that Christians who believe in evolution are somehow not still saved. My point is to discuss theologicaly the creation as stated in the bible, and where macro-evolution is supposed to fit.

and I don't think YEC's are unsaved either.

That being said let me clarify something. No one denies that variations among the kinds (sometimes called micro-evolution) happens. It's demonstrable, testable, and provable. Macro-evo, tries to piggy back off of micro-evo's evidence to seem possible. Now, without getting into a scientific debate on whether macro-evo is true or not, I instead want to focus on where in scripture old EOC's get their proof.

Let's just say, I don't think God was using Genesis 1 in a 100% literal sense. I think it was more of a way to combat neighboring pagan's [of the ancient Hebrew era] cosmologies and teach deeper truths about God and His Creation (like only Him being God, and all things created by Him and for Him). As for proof, the 'sun' and 'moon' to designate "day" and "night" came on the fourth day. 4 "evenings" and "mornings" earlier, God created the universe and the earth. The evening and the morning then can't be literal 24-hour Earth days (of our understanding), so by what did He measure the evening and morning?

If micro-evolution happens, then why wouldn't it be logical to think macro-evolution would happen with more time?

I would ask only one other thing, if you do not believe in creation in any form, ( aka atheist) please refrain from this discussion. As I said this is not a scientific discussion, but a theological one. Thank you.

By this, are TE's considered Creationists, even though God created the beginning materials and worked with them via EvO?

 

[Metal Minister]

1) I can't speak for the USA, but in the UK evolution is not taught until A2 (the second year of A-levels). Students by this time are in Year 12, and are 17-18 years old. So we cannot say belief in evolution is because of educational indoctrination.
**********
I wish we could say the same here, but on some states its taught from 1st and 2nd grade ( 7-9yo)
**********
Speaking personally, I did not take Genesis literally even when I was a child, and I frequently went to church. Most of my knowledge of evolution came from children's magazines and television.
**********
Which is part of my point. Children are being told this dogmatically from a very early age.
**********

2) Although most people (including atheists) see no problem with believing in both God and evolution, a lot of people who have a problem with religion dislike theistic evolutionists too. Richard Dawkins for example. So unfortunately we aren't free from ridicule either.

And of course, many YEC aren't keen on theistic evolutionists either.
**********
Lol, as I stated before, so long as we bring people to the foot of the cross, that's what is MOST important. I only challenge OEC's because I believe so passionately that God meant what he said in Genesis, and that evolution would state that death brought man into the world rather than man bringing death into the world. This means that salvation through Jesus would be meaningless as a literal thing.
**********

3) Death is Genesis was spiritual, rather than literal. Indeed it's very difficult to interpret later books in the Bible without taking this position.
**********
This is a point where we differ greatly. I believe that this is another literal translation, because death is not even mentioned until after Man's fall. ( there are other reasons, but I don't have the room here)
**********
Non-Christians cannot post in this particular section.
********
I thought so too, but I've seen some posts on other threads that were decidely atheistic.
**********

I love your username by the way.
**********
Thank you. It has multiple meanings, but was given to me by my brother. It's partly because I am in fact an ordained minister, and I have a love of metalcore, and as he said, "your faith is as strong as steel!"

**********

 

[Jesus Pipes]

I don't think your question is really possible to answer. Evolution is taught as science which obviously contradicts creationism. It would be the equivalent of some science teacher asking me to prove that creationism exists by only using my science book.

The scientific revolution didn't occur until the 17th century so when the bible was written people did not have this knowledge.

There are fossils that have been carbon dated to be millions of years old. Carbon dating is observable so it is hard to ignore those facts.

Macro evolution has tons of holes in it too. There are all sorts of missing links from one species to another so there are plenty of guesses in there. Micro evolution exists so it isn't that far fetched to think it would work on a macro level given billions of years. You can't 100% prove it exists because there aren't linking species, you just have certain like type of species here and there they have uncovered.

Science doesn't have to discredit religion, but ignoring certain scientific facts doesn't to try and make sure the bible was 100% correct does not do the religion community any good. I think being so rigid and closed minded turns a lot of believers away from God. The most important thing about religion is having a relationship with God, and when you chose to ignore certain facts it discredits religion as a whole in some people's minds.

 

[Smidlee]

Metal Minister wrote:


Simply and demonstrably false. MM, are you a minister and still unaware that there where plenty of early Christians, even prominent ones, who did not agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Papias is right in Jesus days (on earth) they were called Sadducees.

 

[NGC 6712]

I didn't want to start a scientific debate, but the evidence I'm speaking of is:

Your list is not evidence but pseudoscientific garbage. Amazing what the gullible will fall for when some folk make a list of rubbish.

Etc, etc, etc,etc

Yep etc etc etc is right. A list of garbage. Also a list I doubt you have the first clue about and you just grabbed it from some nonsense source.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Which is part of my point. Children are being told this dogmatically from a very early age.

Again, I can't speak for anyone from the US, but in my case not being exposed to creationism probably contributed. It was never talked about in church, not at the CoE (Church of England) schools I attended.

Lol, as I stated before, so long as we bring people to the foot of the cross, that's what is MOST important.

Good to know. We've had the misfortune of meeting a couple of very self-righteous Creationists here.

I only challenge OEC's because I believe so passionately that God meant what he said in Genesis, and that evolution would state that death brought man into the world rather than man bringing death into the world. This means that salvation through Jesus would be meaningless as a literal thing.

Most creationists I've met ask why TEs are willing to regard some parts of the Old Testament as metaphorical, while the New Testament is regarded as completely and literally true.

The reason, in a word, is evidence.

We can't demand evidence for everything, because some events (particularly miraculous events) may not leave evidence - like Jesus turning water into wine. At the same time however, we don't expect there to be any evidence contradicting a supposedly miraculous event. There is evidence which contradicts the idea that Adam was literally the first human being, and that the world was created in literally six 24-hour periods. But while we may not be able to actually prove that Jesus preforms miracles, there is no evidence proving that he did not.

This is a point where we differ greatly. I believe that this is another literal translation, because death is not even mentioned until after Man's fall. ( there are other reasons, but I don't have the room here)

The chapter I was specifically thinking of was 1 Corinthians 15. Passages 44-49 to be exact:

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall webear the image of the heavenly man.

(link)​

It's an interesting passage. The whole chapter is basically about resurrection, literally (being raised from the dead) and metaphorically (being born again), both of which suggest that the Fall meant spiritual death, rather than actual death.

There are also parts which are much harder to take literally. The "first man" is Adam while the "second man" is obviously Jesus (he's mentioned later in the chapter). Considering that Jesus was not literally the second man, why should we regard Adam as literally the first man?

Lastly, it mentions that the natural came before the spiritual, which makes sense in an evolutionary context.

 

[Metal Minister]

A Summary of Evidence for Literal 24-hr Creation Days in Genesis 1.

by Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MA (candidate).

The following is a summary of the major BIBLICAL data which clearly shows that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hr days. It is by no means exhaustive, since such a presentation would fill an entire book (I am writing one at the moment!). Since my training is primarily in theology, hermeneutics and Biblical languages the presentation only discusses scripture and not science.

Note that the major scientific evidence for non-literal days (ie. an old earth), is starlight travel, radiometric dating methods and geological features. For scientific discussions of these see the following (which are again just a small sample. Many more discussions can be found in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Creation Research Society Quarterly):

Starlight Travel D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time,Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994. D. R. Humphreys, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 195-212.

Radiometric Dating J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods,ICR, 1999. A. Snelling, "Dubious Radiogenic Pb Behavior Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt" Impact 319,ICR, 2000. A. Snelling, ""Excess Argon": The "Achilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks" Impact 307,ICR, 1999. A. Snelling, "Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon" Impact 309,ICR, 1999. S. Austin, "Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows" Impact 224,ICR.

Geology S. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, 1994. T. Walker, "Geology and the Young Earth" Creation 21.4 (1999). pp. 16-20. G. Berthault "Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 218-221. P. Julien, Y. Lan, & Y Raslan "Experimental Mechanics of Sand Stratification" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 213-217.

Philosophy of Science T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, (This book is an absolute MUST for those who think that you can't dispute scientific "facts".

1. yom + numerical = 24-hr day

The first argument is that yom + numerical always refers to a normal 24-hr day.

Don Stoner (A New Look at an Old Earth, pp. 46-48) however, claims that this is not true. He cites Zech 14:7 as an example.

Zech 14:7 states: "It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime--a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light."

The day mentioned here is obviously the same day mentioned in vv. 1, 4 and 6. Since "a text without a context, is a pretext" we need to examine the immediate context of these verses.

It should be abundantly clear from v. 5 that on "that day" the Lord will come. It describes a time-space _EVENT_ in the future. How can the coming of the Lord take a long period of time? It is an event: at one moment on that day, He is not here - the next moment He has returned!

Don, however, believes it refers to the New Jerusalem, the eternal state. But if the "day" refers to the eternal state - an indefinite period of time - it could hardly be called "unique"!

Therefore, the "unique day" in Zech 14:7 does indeed refer to a literal 24-hr day.

Others have suggested Hosea 6:2 as an exception: "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence."

However, this verse is set in poetic parallelism - and parallelism of a specific kind. This parallelism is a common Semitic device which takes the form X // X + 1 (see Job 5:19; Proverbs 6:16; 30:15, 18; Amos 1:3, 6, 9 for more examples). Given that these instances are part of a well defined Semitic device, they must be interpreted in accordance with that device. In this case, the use of "two days" and "three days" communicate that the restoration mentioned in the previous verse, will happen quickly and surely (See Cohen/Vandermey, Hosea & Amos,Epositors Bible Commentary). Therefore, these instances must refer to normal days as opposed to long periods, otherwise the device would lose its meaning ie. the restoration would _not_ be quick and sure if the days were long periods of time. There may also be a subtle prophetic allusion to the restoration of humanity after the death and resurrection of Christ - especially since virtually all the content of Hosea serve to prophetically illustrate future events. Again, this demands that the days be taken as 24-hr days.

Bradley and Olsen ("The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible,Radmacher and Preus, eds. [Zondervan, 1984]) also object to this line of reasoning: "There is no other place in the Old Testament where the intent is to describe events that involve multiple and/or sequential, indefinite periods of time. If the intent of Genesis 1 is to describe creation as occurring in six, indefinite time periods, it is a unique Old Testament event being recorded. Other descriptions where "yom" refers to an indefinite time period are all for a single time period. Thus, the absence of the use of "yamim" for other than regular days and the use of ordinals only before regular days elsewhere in the Old Testament cannot be given an unequivocal exegetical significance in view of the uniqueness of the events being described in Genesis 1 (i.e, sequential, indefinite time periods)."

The first problem here is that they assume what they are trying to prove ie. that the authors intent was to describe sequential indefinite periods of time. Secondly, "yom" by itself does not refer to an indefinite period of time. It only has this extended meaning when it is modified by a prepsoition such as "be" (eg. Gen 2:4). However, none of the instances in Genesis 1 are modified in this way. In addition, Numbers 29:12-35 also describes a numbered sequence of days which are clearly literal 24-hr days.

Thus the pattern of yom + numerical = 24 day does indeed hold.

2. The use of ereb and boqer (morning and evening)

The next argument is the use of evening and morning (ereb and boqer) as an idiom for a literal 24-hr day.

Don Stoner (pp. 45-46) objects to this by stating that these word are used together many times to refer to longer periods.

First he states that the use of "day and night" often refers to a continuous time. A store that is open "day and night" is open all the time. However, this analogy is irrelevant since we are not talking about "day and night" but about "evening and morning". Day and night essentially run into each other so that a store open day and night would be open all the time. However, a store that is open morning and evening would only be open for a short period in the morning and a short period in the evening but closed during the day and closed during the night. Thus Don's analogy fails. In any case, analogies are only illustrative, they don't constitute a proof or argument.

Don then cites Ex 18:13-14: "The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening." When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"

He argues that the context implies that Moses was spending all his time judging, day after day. This may be true but the question is what specifically does "from morning till evening" actually mean? "From morning till evening" clearly means from when the sun comes up to when the sun goes down" ie. "all day". It does not mean day after day. We can of course deduce that this was happening day after day because Jethro advised to appoint other judges, but this comes from the wider context not the phrase "from morning till evening" itself. Thus "from morning till evening" indicates that Moses was judging "all day" and the appointment of judges implies that this was happening "day after day."

Don also points to Ex 27:21 (and Lev 24:3) which states: "In the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain that is in front of the Testimony, Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come."

As I have pointed out before, this is a bizarre argument. There is simply no way that "from evening till morning" can possibly refer to an indefinite period of time. "From evening till morning" means that the lamps were to be kept burning "all night". They would not have been kept burning all the time, since there would be no need for them during the light of day, and of course whenever the Israelites moved camp they would not be burning either. I find it hard to imagine how such a twisted interpretation can be gleaned from these verses.

In any case, none of the above verses is grammatically parallel to the instances of "evening and morning" in Gen 1. All the above instances are preceded by prepositions, but the instances in Gen 1 are independently conjuncted.

The closest grammatical parallel is Dan 8:14, where ereb and boqer are conjuncted together and refer to a literal 24-hr day: "He said to me, 'It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.'"

Gen 1 has "wayehi ereb wayehi boqer" (and then there was evening and then there was morning). Dan 8:14 however has "ereb boqer" (evening [and] morning). The "and" is elliptical (a common occurrence in Biblical Hebrew) and we would not expect to find the verb "wayehi" used here, since Dan 8:14 is direct speech whereas Gen 1 is narrative.

Don argues that "ereb boqer" in Dan 8:14 refers to a period of 2,300 days. However, this is incorrect. It is true that "ereb boqer alpayim ushlsh meot" refers to a period of 2,300 literal days but we are only interested in what "ereb boqer" means. Therefore, if the modifier "alpayim ushlsh meot" (2,300) is dropped, it is clear that "ereb boqer" refers to a single day.

Don has also argued that the compound clause "wayehi ereb wayehi boqer" terminating each day should be translated as "and there was evenings and there was mornings". Since ereb and boqer have no plural form they could be translated as plurals (as in Dan 8:14). Therefore, each creation "day" represents a long span of "evenings and mornings".

Again, this is very poor exegesis. "ereb" and "boqer" may only be translated as plurals IF the context makes it clear that this is necessary. In the case of Dan 8:14, ereb and boqer are modified by the number "2,300" -an obvious indication that the plural should be used. However, there is no such modication in Gen 1, or any other contextual data to suggest that these words should be translated as plurals. In fact the context demands a singular translation, since the verb "wayehi" is singular so "ereb" and "boqer" must also be singular.

In any case, both ereb and boqer are preceded by a waw-consecutive. Therefore, if they were translated as plurals, it would imply that there was a long span of evenings and then a long span of mornings, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

3. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17

The 3rd argument for literal 24-hr creation days are the references to the creation days in Ex 20:11 and 31:17. These verses clearly state that the creation was completed in 6 literal ordinary work days.

Don Stoner objects (pp. 48-50) by arguing that sabbath days are merely a shadow of the eternal state, and that it is unsafe to come to conclusions about the length of an object by looking at its "shadow". He quotes Col 2:16-17 and Heb 8:5.

The above is certainly true, but it is completely irrelevant to the present discussion. Don is either completely confused about the whole concept of "types" or "shadows", or is trying to netralise this argument by "bait and switch".

The sabbath is a type of the eternal state, but, as Don pointed out, you can't come to conclusions about the length of this eternal state based on its shadow, which is the sabbath. Now it should be obvious that this has absolutely no bearing at all on the length of the days of creation since they are not even mentioned in the verses Don cites. The discussion is about the length of the days of creation, not the length of the eternal state.

Don goes on to cite Lev 25:3-4 as proof that such shadows apply directly to the working week: "For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards."

However, this verse does not even mention the working week! Rather, it talks about years NOT days! Neither does it have the causal explanation "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day" found in Ex 20:11 and 31:17. In these verses, the use of "ki" ("for, because") at the beginning of v. 11 indicates the creation week is the very basis of the working week.

Similarly, Gleason Archer argues that Exodus 20:11 does not demonstrate the creation days were 24 hours, any more than the eight day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves the wilderness wonderings, under Moses, lasted for eight days. But again, this is an invalid comparison. Although, the Feast of Tabernacles is prescribed to last for eight days (Leviticus 23:34-36), it does not contain the causal explanation "For in six days..." found in Exodus 20:11.

Don further states (p. 49) "...we really ought to reflect that God's week is not a shadow of ours but that ours is a shadow of His." Presumably, his reference to "God's week" means the creation week. However, this statement is again false. Firstly, types and shadows always precede the real thing - yet Don has it the other way around. Secondly, Ex 20:11 explicitly states that the creation week is the very basis of,and the reason for, our working week!

Next, Don appeals to the mention of the sabbath rest in Hebrews 4 in order to argue that the Sabbath is still continuing, and therefore that at least the 7th day is longer than 24-hrs. However, Don does not even bother to exegete the passage - he just asserts that what he has said is true, but a closer look at the passage clearly shows that this assertion is completely wrong.

 

[Metal Minister]

Use of yom instead of 'olam

The next argument is the use of "yom" instead of the use of "olam".

If the days are long periods of time then "olam" would be a more suitable word to use in order to communicate that meaning.

Don Stoner, however, contends that "olam" means "forever", in which case this would not be the most appropriate word to use.

But this is an unnecessarily narrow definition of the word "olam." The Princeton-BDB Lexicon give the definitions "long duration, antiquity, futurity". Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) states that the word "...is not confined to the future", but can be used to describe something that happened long ago "but rarely, if ever, points to a limitless past" and that the word does not in itself contain the idea of endlessness which "is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past and also by the fact that sometimes it is desirable to repeat the world, not merely saying "forever", but "forever and ever."

TWOT goes on to say that "olam" was used to refer to a long age or period of time, although there is no instance of this usage in the OT. In the LXX, "aion" was used to render "olam" and this word certainly contains the idea of a long age or period.

Therefore, if the days of Gen 1 were meant to be understood as long ages, "olam" would have been a far better choice than "yom".

Conclusion

There is also quite a bit of other evidence suggesting the days are literal 24-hr days, but at least 3 of these 4 arguments are pretty much conclusive in showing that the days of Gen 1 MUST be 24-hr days. When all this evidence is taken together it is simply overwhelming! There should be no doubt at all that these days are indeed 24-hr days.

Given that scripture is inspired by God, is authoritive and inerrant then it doesn't matter how convincing scientific arguments sound they simply cannot be a correct interpretation of the data!

Only scripture is inerrant - the natural world is not. Indeed, the natural word is fallen and under a curse.

I suspect that OECs will simply attempt to dismiss these arguments by claiming that God's word is inspired, but my interpretation is not. However, this would only be true if my interpretation does not match what the author intended to communicate. I have offered a solid exegetical basis for my interpretation and at the same time refuted some common objections.

It is simply not good enough to protest "that's just your interpretation". Firstly, this is bordering on existentialism. Such protests also inadvertantly deny the possibility of knowing truly (a subtle form of agnosticism)

 

[NGC 6712]

Note that the major scientific evidence for non-literal days (ie. an old earth), is starlight travel, radiometric dating methods and geological features.

Yeah the entire fields of geology, geophysics, geochemistry and astronomy. No small matter tossing that aside because of a few sources of pseudoscientific hogwash.

For scientific discussions of these see the following (which are again just a small sample. Many more discussions can be found in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Creation Research Society Quarterly):

Otherwise known as non-peer reviewed unscientific toilet paper.

Starlight Travel D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time,Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994. D. R. Humphreys, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 195-212.
Radiometric Dating J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods,ICR, 1999. A. Snelling, "Dubious Radiogenic Pb Behavior Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt" Impact 319,ICR, 2000. A. Snelling, ""Excess Argon": The "Achilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks" Impact 307,ICR, 1999. A. Snelling, "Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon" Impact 309,ICR, 1999. S. Austin, "Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows" Impact 224,ICR.
Geology S. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, 1994. T. Walker, "Geology and the Young Earth" Creation 21.4 (1999). pp. 16-20. G. Berthault "Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 218-221. P. Julien, Y. Lan, & Y Raslan "Experimental Mechanics of Sand Stratification" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12.2 (1998), pp. 213-217.

Oh dear. A mathematically false model based on GR, unscientific shotgun blast polemics about radiodating and ICR's failed RATE project. CRSQ and CexN are not exactly scientific journals.

Philosophy of Science T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, (This book is an absolute MUST for those who think that you can't dispute scientific "facts".

I have read SSR. A little too much emphasis on paradigm shifts but he makes some good points as well.

 

[Metal Minister]

Again, I did not want a scientific debate (though all you've done is use ad hominem attacks without sighting any proof) but I instead wanted a theological discussion which you ignored. You also seem very angry and combative in your posting. You should be happy that our saviour has already won, and bring people to that saving knowledge! God bless

 

[NGC 6712]

Again, I did not want a scientific debate (though all you've done is use ad hominem attacks without sighting any proof) but I instead wanted a theological discussion which you ignored. You also seem very angry and combative in your posting. You should be happy that our saviour has already won, and bring people to that saving knowledge! God bless

I did not start a scientific debate - I just passed comment on well known sources of rubbish. Let's face it you posted some dubious references without any form of substantiation. Those references have anyway been battered to death countless times in such discussions. I have no problem with the theological side of this topic being discussed but when all is said and done the scientific side of this debate is the pre-eminent one being that all theological waffle aside the fact is the YEC position is scientifically and logically an untenable one. No amount of scriptural gymnastics can over come that.

 

[Keachian]

Now, please back to the theological aspect, because the most important part is to bring people to the foot of the Cross.

Exactly, the whole of the Christian faith is centred around the Cross is it not? How on earth do you think we should do that when every part of our faith appears as foolishness to nonbelievers, Paul did not say that the creation is foolishness to those who are dying but to us it is the very source of life, did he? Christ did not say pick up your Bibles hold them dear and treat everything as literal and follow me, did he? Peter didn't say that it is because of God's mercy that creation happened in 6 days and that now we live in great expectation, did he? So why insist that the only way to understand God's scriptures is in light of this incredibly clunky reading that imo misses quite a few of the essential points of the passage?