Christian doctrine of creation ?

[twinc]

"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 - must all Christians accept this rather than the many other way out,weird and wacky alternatives being offered - twinc

[RickD]

"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 - must all Christians accept this rather than the many other way out,weird and wacky alternatives being offered - twinc

No, twinc. All Christians don't need to accept that "yom" means 24 hours. There is more than one literal meaning for the word "yom", that has been translated as "day", in Genesis.

[twinc]

they most certainly have to to keep the sabbath or the 30 days of the flood or the 3days of the Resurrection - so why the urge or hankering to accept way out,weird and wacky alternatives - come back home soon - twinc

[RickD]

they most certainly have to to keep the sabbath or the 30 days of the flood or the 3days of the Resurrection - so why the urge or hankering to accept way out,weird and wacky alternatives - come back home soon - twinc

Oh, ok. I get it. Where's Alan Funt? Where's the camera?

Twinc, what in the Sam Hill, are you talking about?

[jon510]

If some one says, "back in the day" then we know they aren't talking about a 24 hour period of time because the reference is obviously about a different time. But when scripture says...

"And the evening and the morning were the first day." Why would we presume a figure of speech referring to the time of creation when the descriptor words preceding "day" (yom) are "evening" & "morning" thus describing a literal day?

[Canuckster1127]

If some one says, "back in the day" then we know they aren't talking about a 24 hour period of time because the reference is obviously about a different time. But when scripture says...

"And the evening and the morning were the first day." Why would we presume a figure of speech referring to the time of creation when the descriptor words preceding "day" (yom) are "evening" & "morning" thus describing a literal day?

Jon510 first. welcome to the site and thanks for coontributing.

The answer to your question is because we're reading the Genesis account in Hebrew and recognizing Hebrew idioms rather than English. The phrase as used in Genesis to a Hebrew denoted an idiomatic understanding that said that this was a defined period of time. This is particularly evident because the elements necessary to define a 24 hour day were not present in the first 3 days denoted in Genesis. A similar metaphor in English might be the way that we speak of a the birth of Isaac Newton and could call it the dawn of the day of modern science. Similarly the 'death' of the USSR could be referred to as a sunset to the day of communism.

There are similar uses in English but in the end we're reading in Hebrew and have to put it in the cultural context and idiomatic use of phrases in the Hebrew Culture in place at the times it was written.

It's my opinion, but I think a lot of the confusion that comes from many YEC positions invoking the simplest literal understanding rides roughshod over the Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Culture and attempts to thrust a 3,500 year old document into English syntax and 20th century scientific parameters. It just doesn't fit in that way, nor should it.

[Ivellious]

When talking about a baseball player's career, I might reference the "dawn" of his playing days or when he was in the "twilight" of his career. Am I referring to literally the morning that he woke up and started playing? Of course not. Times of day can be figurative too. Especially when prior to there being a sun and the Earth, there was no such thing as a "day" to start with.

[jon510]

If some one says, "back in the day" then we know they aren't talking about a 24 hour period of time because the reference is obviously about a different time. But when scripture says...

"And the evening and the morning were the first day." Why would we presume a figure of speech referring to the time of creation when the descriptor words preceding "day" (yom) are "evening" & "morning" thus describing a literal day?

Jon510 first. welcome to the site and thanks for coontributing.

The answer to your question is because we're reading the Genesis account in Hebrew and recognizing Hebrew idioms rather than English. The phrase as used in Genesis to a Hebrew denoted an idiomatic understanding that said that this was a defined period of time. This is particularly evident because the elements necessary to define a 24 hour day were not present in the first 3 days denoted in Genesis. A similar metaphor in English might be the way that we speak of a the birth of Isaac Newton and could call it the dawn of the day of modern science. Similarly the 'death' of the USSR could be referred to as a sunset to the day of communism.

There are similar uses in English but in the end we're reading in Hebrew and have to put it in the cultural context and idiomatic use of phrases in the Hebrew Culture in place at the times it was written.

It's my opinion, but I think a lot of the confusion that comes from many YEC positions invoking the simplest literal understanding rides roughshod over the Hebrew Language and the Hebrew Culture and attempts to thrust a 3,500 year old document into English syntax and 20th century scientific parameters. It just doesn't fit in that way, nor should it.

Thank you. The embolden part of your response truly answered my question. It helps to step back and look at the context of what's being said, and in this case you helped me to do that. And I agree, to read a 3500 year old document as if it were a modern scientific journal is just insane. And it causes Christians to look foolish.

[twinc]

the appeal in both and all such cases is to basic logic and commonsense = so the 30 days of the flood were not 24hr days but 30 thousand years or more,the sabbath came round once in 7 thousand years or more and Christ is not yet risen for 3 thousand years have not yet passed - come home soon - btw even with 30 thousand years of rain some still insist it was only a local flood - why oh why prefer to accept or hanker after the way out,weird and wacky rather than the original - hurry back home - twinc

[neo-x]

so the 30 days of the flood were not 24hr days but 30 thousand years or more

what makes you think that a single day is equal to a 1000 year period?

[Danieltwotwenty]

the appeal in both and all such cases is to basic logic and commonsense = so the 30 days of the flood were not 24hr days but 30 thousand years or more,the sabbath came round once in 7 thousand years or more and Christ is not yet risen for 3 thousand years have not yet passed - come home soon - btw even with 30 thousand years of rain some still insist it was only a local flood - why oh why prefer to accept or hanker after the way out,weird and wacky rather than the original - hurry back home - twinc

The word Yom does not always mean a 24 hour day, it depends on context. In the flood account it means 24 hours, in genesis it means a period of time as "in the age of the Romans" and it can also mean a 12 hour period of time but I am not sure of an example for that one ( maybe someone else has an example).

Here is some info regarding a local flood account http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Here is a creation account of long creation days http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html

These are just interpretation of ancient documents, you can believe Y.E.C position if you like but stop misunderstanding our position, educate yourself on what we believe and then present your argument.

Dan

[jon510]

the appeal in both and all such cases is to basic logic and commonsense...

I think what we must keep in mind is that the Bible is NOT a science book. The days of creation can be literal or they may not be, it really doesn't matter in the end. Because the whole point of scripture is to let us know what is possible with God is impossible for us. If it were any other way we would be able to prove God out right and the whole consequence for having no faith in God's word, (the fall) would not be; thus making faith in God a house of cards. I think we both know that isn't the case. God demands faith in him, always has, always will. So at some point when we reach the threshold where "logic and common sense" can no longer carry us; we must "trust God with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding." If we can't... then we might as well be atheists.

[twinc]

no you must not educate yourself - the establishment has to educate you and certify that you are qualified e.g.even after Pasteur proved otherwise I am led to believe that your position is that life did not come from life but evolved from nothing as a result of a Big Bang - twinc

[RickD]

no you must not educate yourself - the establishment has to educate you and certify that you are qualified e.g.even after Pasteur proved otherwise I am led to believe that your position is that life did not come from life but evolved from nothing as a result of a Big Bang - twinc

Twinc, life cannot come from non-life. What if the big bang was exactly what God used to create the universe? God who is life, created life. If you can see outside your concrete YEC box, you could understand that the big bang is biblical.

[twinc]

no you must not educate yourself - the establishment has to educate you and certify that you are qualified e.g.even after Pasteur proved otherwise I am led to believe that your position is that life did not come from life but evolved from nothing as a result of a Big Bang - twinc

Twinc, life cannot come from non-life. What if the big bang was exactly what God used to create the universe? God who is life, created life. If you can see outside your concrete YEC box, you could understand that the big bang is biblical.

nonsense - the Big Bang never ever was nor could be and is not Biblical nor Christian doctrine of creation but a fudge and a fake and a con for the vital ingredient is fudged - everything was created in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days very good[complete] and not after millions of years of evolution - come home now or make it soon - twinc