YEC vs OEC

[Juspal]

I know this has been gone over several times, and also forgive me if there is a better place in the forums for this topic. I am a Christian, although I've never dedicated any real studying to scriptures. When I recently joined this site I was exposed to YEC vs OEC. I've not taken a position on this yet, as I am still researching the view points. In doing so today I came across an idea that really makes me think. Let me say that at the time I found this, I was researching quantum gravity. Theoretical scientists are baffled because when quantum theory and general relativity are combined the math gives them "infinity." So I'm thinking "Look how close they are to finding God." Surely the infinity they are finding.....anyway, getting away from my point here.

The author of what I was reading was talking about how much of the bible was written in figurative language. And here is the quote that got me thinking..."The six day creation as narrated in the bible was based on topical arrangement rather than chronological arrangement based on literal 24-hour day. As narrated, "on the first day god created ... ". how can there be a first (24-hour) day if there are no solar systems yet? So, it is clear that the ancient authors of the bible presented the days as a means of arranging the topics." I'm sure this has been brought up in the debates before now. I'm just trying to get thoughts on the idea since I'm new to it. Thanks!

[dayage]

Hello Juspal,

God created the universe "In the beginning." From my reading, it would seem that most scholars, regardless of their view of Genesis 1, see "the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) as a merism refering to the entire universe. This was before the creation "days." There is plenty of evidence that the yom of Genesis 1 are long periods of time and not 24-hours.

I'm not sure what creation view they were refering to. It could be something more like the Analogical Day View or the Framework View.

Genesis 1 is focused on things which God did to the earth and when I look at earth's history and the events in Gen. 1, I see a correct order of events.

[neo-x]

Creation order is open to debate, it may very well be in the correct order or it may not, it depends on who interprets them and how. Just saying.

[twinc]

why oh why the hankering or urge to accept way out,weird and wacky alternatives rather than the original - is it because God is unacceptable but fallible,flawed and foolish acceptable - there neither was nor could be millions of years ago of evolution as nothing could exist millions of years ago without being boiled alive/dead or incinerated to cinders and dust and ashes with no existing fossils even - twinc

[Ivellious]

twinc, you seem to be delving into a new topic, sort of, but I'll correct your points anyway.

why oh why the hankering or urge to accept way out,weird and wacky alternatives rather than the original

Are you suggesting the original is always better or more accurate? There are literally hundreds of examples I could come up with off the top of my head where that logic doesn't work. Did having leeches suck out the blood of a diseased person work? It was one of the first "scientific" methods of treated sick people.

there neither was nor could be millions of years ago of evolution as nothing could exist millions of years ago without being boiled alive/dead or incinerated to cinders and dust and ashes with no existing fossils even

This is hard to even understand, but you are just flat out wrong. Where do you come up with the idea that millions of years ago everything was incinerated to death? Yes, geological evidence would suggest that, say, 4 billion years ago this was the case, that no life could have arisen, but there have been hundreds of millions of years with atmospheric and climate conditions that allowed life to live. What evidence do you have to support your view?

[twinc]

Original/Origins was thus and so - " in the beginning,in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days out of nothing God created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible - btw millions of years ago the sun would have been bigger and hotter and nothing could or would have survived not even fossils remnants only dust and ashes nor was there a protective water vapour canopy in fact there never ever was millions of years ago only hocus pocus hoaxes and cons - twinc

[Ivellious]

First of all, you are wrong, millions of years ago does not mean the sun would have been bigger or hotter...by that logic, how are mercury or venus even around? Also, even presuming you are correct in that statement, it violates the logic of you saying it "could not" have been there millions of years ago. How can you pull out geological statements about what it was like millions of years ago, but then turn around and say "but those are lies anyway."? You can't have it both ways.

[RickD]

btw millions of years ago the sun would have been bigger and hotter and nothing could or would have survived not even fossils remnants only dust and ashes nor was there a protective water vapour canopy in fact there never ever was millions of years ago only hocus pocus hoaxes and cons - twinc

Where did you come up with this, twinc? References please.

[twinc]

what geological statements are you talking about - not the pseudo/phoney geological column as just another non existent hoax and con - twinc