OEC v. YEC (Not a competition)

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:13 pm

I know this seems like off topic, but as the question of OEC or YEC seems to come down to "who has more faith", it seems the natural direction this topic will take.

When I was 12 years old I put my faith in Christ, I believed He was my savior....did this mean my faith was so mature that I never doubted? No, were there times that I struggled? Sure...as with any relationship, I grew to understand how faithful God is.

In our sin, we are woefully inadequate in our understanding how faithful and trustowrthy God is. At first, the faith needed is blind (and we must always retain that childlike faith). But as we walk through life and see God's providence , our faith in God becomes cemented though this relationship. Even the Hebrews were told to erect standing stones after God providing for them, as a testament of His provision, so that all may look and be reminded of God's faithfulness.

We put our faith in HIm in the beginning and continue to learn how much we can trust in Him in our relationship. One can say that faith beomes less and less "blind" as we grow in our walk. God gives us those "holes" in His hands throughout our walk. Not because we doubt, but because see the results of His very faithfulness. Is our faith , then, any less real because we know God's faithfulness?

Because we continue to examine the mysteries of Genesis 1, our faith is to be questioned? There could be a myriad possibilities and our exploring these possibilities does not negate our faith that God did it! And the scripture is sufficiently mysterious to warrant continued wonder!

THis is why I do get frustrated when talking about this....it always seems to come down to a battle of faith...."We are more faithful Christians because we don't think about these things" (not a direct quote, but let's face it, people accuse us of not thinking biblically, that is really what they are saying)

forum monk wrote:I totally disagree z/g. Who has more faith; he who has walked with Him, talked to Him, held the hem of His garment, touch His nail scarred hands and then believed? Or he who believes having never seen Him, or heard the tone of His voice, or felt the warmth of His breath?

And isn't it wonderful that in a relationship with Christ, we do get to see him, hear his words, and feel the warmth of His spirit and are not asked to walk blindly?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:25 pm

ttoews wrote:That's interesting, but back on point...

It seems to me and I am sure you will correct me if I make an erroneous conclusion, that "the point" is one of literal interpretation. It is clear that Jesus used figures of speech and as such they often could not nor should they be taken literally. No one argues this point...not even the most strict literalist. There are many rhetorical devices and figures of speech in the Bible. "Yom" is not a figure of speech. It is used in a literal context and that context is corroborated in other scripture which I have already noted.

no that is not my implication....it is your erroneous inference. I am not saying it is too short of a time for God, rather I am saying that the evidence indicates that He chose to take a longer period of time.

I apologize for my erroneous conclusion. There is no evidence that he chose to do something different than what he states. The so-called evidence you hold (I now perhaps erroneously believe you hold) is from a source other than the Word of God.

Yikes, if I buy this line of argument I would have to accept transubstantiation too....

This is answered in my first point above.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:43 pm

Regarding a few point of evidence, to counter the yom as day argument:

The idea that Gen 1:1-3 are linked by the conjunction 'and' and so are to be taken as consecuetive time order is incorrect. Very few translations actually place the conjuction in the text. This mitigates against the idea it is to be rendered as a continuous action, thus eliminating the inference of the Gap theory.

It was said Adam named all the animals in Genesis 2 on the sixth day. This is adding to the text and is not what the scripture says. He named a subset of the animals not all the species on earth., Cattle, birds and beasts of the field. Further, the concept of species was non-existent. Animals were catagoried by 'kind' and so the principle 'kinds' were probably named from the subsets presented. The events of Chapter 2 are not in literal time order. They are presented to shift the focus on to man and his condition.

The creation of the light on the first day before the sun and moon on the fourth day: The mystery of the first light is not explained. It is this light that Augustine commiserates over for ten or eleven chapters in his treatise on Genesis. We are not given every detail about the various elements of creation. Why for example are the greater and lesser lights of the fourth day not explicitly called the sun and moon? We are given information that is relevent to the purpose being presented. God created, God made, God spoke.

Yom can be translated other ways and so the writer has made it impossible to interpret it as anything but a literal day, by framing the time period with the words, evening and morning. "It is as clear as day." (A rhetorical device

... ).

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:53 pm

Enigma and Zoegirl:
I have not accused anyone of not having faith. Obviously if you believe in Christ you have faith and God has given to each a measure of faith.

What does Jesus say to Thomas after he touches and declares his belief in Christ?

To believe God created the world in six days takes faith, plain and simple, especially if one wants to hold to some idea that contradicts the six creation.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:11 pm

My point is that examining meanings of Genesis in light of scientific observations does not indicate a lack of faith

forum monk wrote: To me, this means when every evidence before my face is contrary to the word of God. I will stand with God. We have been entrusted with the very words of God and we are not to add or take away from them. If we alter the meanings,

forum monk wrote:
One can not look at the miracle of creation and diminish it with human reasoning. I posted previously that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Where is faith if you can hold the evidence in your hand, and observe it and measure it? God is asking something much more from us than to lean on our own understanding.

Sure does sound as if you are implying that we have less faith if we look at scientific evidence to me.

LOok, I have stated where I stand....At this point I think we will just go around and around.

We agree that the universe is old. I've already discussed why I don't like appearance of age. YOu don't like day/age (although a corollary to day/age is that God created in those days but allowed long periods of time in between)

Could be from God's perspective....could be all sorts of things going on...

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:39 pm

Heb 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Kind of speaks for itself in my opinion.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:53 pm

Forum Monk wrote:Heb 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Kind of speaks for itself in my opinion.

NEVER said otherwise, none of us, nor the website, has EVER said otherwise.

We will never understand fully HOW God did this, so it will always be from faith....

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:27 pm

Then we agree.

I don't agree, however that the evidence points to a long period of time for creation. I have presented my case. I have shown the scriptural evidence why I believe in six 24hour days. Now I am waiting for the scriptural evidence that indicates it was a long period of time.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:38 pm

Thought you had no problem with OEC, as long as it was with the Gap theory?

As to the scripture...
It's all here on the website.

You just don't agree...not sure if it is worth the time, either...not going to change you're mind....

not going to change mine

Considering the wealth of evidence for an old earth, you must be fair and show me why ALL of the evidence is incorrect. Unless you are saying that we must simply ignore all and just believe.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... iverse.php

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:44 am

It was said Adam named all the animals in Genesis 2 on the sixth day. This is adding to the text and is not what the scripture says. He named a subset of the animals not all the species on earth., Cattle, birds and beasts of the field.

Have to say i disagree:

Gen 2:19 "Now the LORD had formed out of the ground ALL the beast sof the fields and ALL the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called EACH LIVING CREATURE, that was its name."

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:12 am

Beasts of the field is what I said Enigma. The text does not refer to the beasts of the earth. Certain animals that it was thought could be a helper for Adam. And in the end, no suitable help was found among the animals. I think the context limits the selection.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:28 pm

Zoe,
Pondering your answers I wonder if can answer a couple of questions for me?

1. When was the 24 hour day created?

2. How can science determine the age of the earth when the heavens and the earth pre-date the creation of time?

Also I was wondering if you and the majority of members of this forum (to the best of your knowledge) adhere to the "progressive creation" idea?

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:02 pm

Not sure what progressive creation is. I don't claim to know what God is talking about in Creation (though i make many educated [and some uneducated] guesses). I believe in an old earth. Not sure if the 'days' were long or if there is a gap between when God started creation and when he finished NOt sure if Genesis is metaphorical. Not even completely sure the earth is old (though, as i said, i believe it is).

Thats what i believe.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:29 pm

Thanks for that Enigma. I am also interested in some other opinions.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:29 pm

Forum Monk wrote:Zoe,
Pondering your answers I wonder if can answer a couple of questions for me?

1. When was the 24 hour day created?

As soon as the earth rotated around its axid, one presumes....That would be the idea of the day. If I question the meaning of day meaning a 24 hour time period, then I would strictly adhere to what we know a day to be, revolutions of the earth

Forum Monk wrote: 2. How can science determine the age of the earth when the heavens and the earth pre-date the creation of time?

Where are you getting that the heavens and the earth predate time? Just curious...

God created time at the beginning of the universe.

archaeologist wrote: Also I was wondering if you and the majority of members of this forum (to the best of your knowledge) adhere to the "progressive creation" idea?

I have no idea of a percentage...I would think from my previous postings that it would be clear that I have no problem with God using a process, as long as we adhere to His sovereignty.

I found this on the other website I like...I know you won't like it, but I think it sums up my views well
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html

From my numerous symphony analogies

, I would say that, although God did not explicitly say He used a process, this does not exclude that He did.