You didn't really answer my question.
According to modern evolutionist's, the order of evolution is different then scripture. For example, light before the sun, whales before land animals, birds before land animals, and others.
What do we do with a literal six day creation Exodus 20:11?
Sort:
He doesn't believe in evolution though.
I mean, it is possible for God to create the universe in six different time periods, or in six literal days.
The scripture that comes to mind is this: Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
It says there was an evening and a morning, and that that was the first day.
LhcAndrewB wrote:
You didn't really answer my question.
According to modern evolutionist's, the order of evolution is different then scripture. For example, light before the sun, whales before land animals, birds before land animals, and others.
I think you mean science instead of evolutionist. OK, your point is taken though.
Here's how it worked. I have checked the Hebrew and it seems to defend this position, From Gen 1:2 it took the perspective of someone on earth. Initially, while the sun was up, from the perspective on earth everything was dark. When God said, "Let there be light" then the sky cleared enough for light to get through, but the sun was still not visible, sort of like a day with dark clouds. When it says God made the sun, it actually means the sun and stars were finally visible. The Hebrew word in Gen 1:16 justifies this position. Go ahead and look it up in Strong's (H6213).
Sea dwelling creatures (Science says Avalon explosion) occurred before land animals (science says Cambrian explosion). Please look up Avalon and Cambrian explosions. The evolutionists don't have a good answer for them.
SoulMate333 wrote:
Opie, the Bible clearly differentiates between the Sabbath Day, a day of rest and the detailed instructions for the Sabbath Year described throughout Lev. 25, 26:34-35 and Deut. 15.
I agree, but how does that support a YEC position? The point is the Sabbath is normally a seventh of a time cycle.
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
I mean, it is possible for God to create the universe in six different time periods, or in six literal days.
The scripture that comes to mind is this: Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
It says there was an evening and a morning, and that that was the first day.
The evening and the morning are after each of the first six days. It isn't after the seventh day because we are still in the seventh "day". God is still resting from His creating activities.
SoulMate333 wrote:
Brother, what did you think of Dr. Samec's paper?
I asked for a summary of his top one or two points. So far I haven't gotten them.
opiejames wrote:
LhcAndrewB wrote:
Then how long are the time periods exactly?
This is the important question..... Is there any reason to not believe that God didn't create the universe in six days?
There is no Biblical reason to think He didn't create it in the time science says either. Both are equally valid by the word translated "day". What is amazing though is the order matches science now. No other Holy book gets the order correct.
The word is 'day'. Admittedly it can mean 'era' or 'time period' but it most often means 'day', as in a literal 24-hour period. And when we can, we should take the Bible as literally as possible. If you start with this, you can go around taking other words as symbolic of a different idea, and use the same argument to take other parts of the Bible non-literally.
SoulMate333 wrote:
Here's the thing, Progressive Creationists may not be evolutionists per se but they do need to accept much of what they believe about astronomy and geology, requiring them to believe in an earth and universe of billions of years. It creates such a smorgasbord of issues with Scripture that one would cease to recognize the Bible at all. Sorry but I fear that this sort of reasoning is entirely a reaction to perceived conflicts with science and have not the slightest basis in the Hebrew of Genesis.
I don't see it this way at all. To me it shows the beauty of Scripture. It doesn't add to the difficulty, it clears them up. Plants before the sun? Plant's wouldn't last 2 minutes without the sun. With a Progressive Creationist perspective that's not an issue because the sun was there since Gen 1:1, it was just not visible.
SoulMate333 wrote:
Indeed... we can either take the Lord at face value or try to explain things away. However, there are principals of exegesis and hermeneutics that if applied correctly will lead us to just one conclusion and leave us with no doubt. If we still fail to submit, then all we're doing is simply compromising with evolutionary culture and denying God His omnipotence... that He could make a fully functional universe ready for life right from the get-go, for with God nothing is impossible (Mat. 19:26).
Please explain this "simply compromising with evolutionary culture and denying God His omnipotence.". Where am I doing that? Everything I believe is scriptural.
Matt 19:26 supports both our positions.
SoulMate333 wrote:
But God had already created a light source on Day One that evidently fulfilled many roles the sun would eventually fulfill. This means the earth was already rotating in space relative to this light. Its makes less sense because how could a sun not visible to plants be of any effect. Plants would have to survive thousands of years without a sun. And in fact, we are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon Rev. 21:23.
Think of a very cloudy day. The sun isn't visible to earth, but it's effect still shows.
OK @opiejames, assuming that neither our view nor yours can be conclusively proven from the text, that means that either is theoretically possible. Would you, open-mindedly and unbiasedly (I believe I made those adverbs up), say that our view is more likely, or yours?
SoulMate333 wrote:
Sorry, but honestly, once you see the words evening and morning from the first day I don't see why anyone would go further with this.
To me all that means is there is a distinct stopping and starting point. There is no indication that there weren't many days between the "evening and the morning". If it said an evening and a morning after day 7 it would make a lot of difference, but it doesn't. That is because we are still in day 7.
jaredjm wrote:
OK @opiejames, assuming that neither our view nor yours can be conclusively proven from the text, that means that either is theoretically possible. Would you, open-mindedly and unbiasedly (I believe I made those adverbs up), say that our view is more likely, or yours?
I suspect we both think our views are likely more accurate or we wouldn't have them.
The reason I think mine is correct is because God did give us both Scripture and science. God gave us an inquisitive mind and put us in one of the very few places in the universe where we can see the distant stars and discover things. Half-lives do exist so we can date things. These are amazing tools God gave us to help us understand the universe. We do have dinosaur bones, there have been mass extinction events and there are remains of ancient animals. In an Progressive Creationist viewpoint these make logical and Biblical sense (Psalms 104 talks about God taking away species and adding them). The Avalon Explosion is Day 5, the Cambrian explosion is day 6. Science and Scripture match perfectly.
Could God have created the world in 7 days? Of course He could. If He did though, why make so many ancient bones of so many species? Did it all occur in a few thousand years? If it did, it was a crowded planet. Did he just bury bones to deceive us? That seems out of character.
When the Bible and Science match interpreting in one way and not in the other, why pick the other when both are Biblically sound?
Jun 13, 2019
0
#56
SoulMate333 wrote:
Thanks for the post Eric. The great thing is that Scripture is quite plain actually and we don't need to worry about the maybe's.
We don't need to worry about the maybe's, maybe. If we want to be rational and convince other people, and even know why we believe ourselves, then maybe we do need to worry about the maybes!
We have so many fossilized bones and things from the Flood. The flood killed ALL the life on earth, except that which was on the ark (and ocean-living creates obviously). In fact, it would be more surprising if we didn't have all the fossils.
SoulMate333 wrote:
Exactly. And if anything, the earth's human population was very tiny compared with today and so the earth would not have been crowded at all.
maybe not as crowded as today, but they had a lot of people: people lived for 900 years and had lots and lots of kids.
I feel the need to post the first and second chapters of Genesis...
Then how long are the time periods exactly?
This is the important question..... Is there any reason to not believe that God didn't create the universe in six days?
There is no Biblical reason to think He didn't create it in the time science says either. Both are equally valid by the word translated "day". What is amazing though is the order matches science now. No other Holy book gets the order correct.