The Testimony of Adam_777

[zoegirl]

Be Careful, Zoegirl, I'm hardest on people that are like me. Ask, JC333, I don't play favorites. You're attaching a lot of baggage to this conversation.

If you want your license to be angry, you aren't getting it from me.

Hey, I'm sorry about getting angry at you. And I have apologized for getting angry at you, personally. But I will continue to disagree and disagree strongly with those who accuse us of compromising scripture or rejecting it. I'm not looking for a license. I'm quite okay with my disagreement with those that have been mentioned. They have been divisive and they have gone on the attack, moreso than Hugh Ross or anybody at the OEC. But you sure haven't gone out of your way to tell me that ken and Kent shouldn't do what they do. Where is the outcry, the disapproval against them?

I think you're exposing yourself as being more hostile then you intend. I'm brand new here and I can tell you have an ax to grind. I have to say I'm kind of getting turned off to my sister in Christ by her barrage of insults for people who have a ministry that don't agree with her origins beliefs. That's an odd place to rest so much of your passion.

Oh no, I intend to be strong and passionate. Just didn't mean to do so at you personally. But yes, I do get angry at them. I think you should too. They have essentially attacked us and claimed that we are the source of the problems in the church. That doesn't bother you!?!?!? That they claim that we reject scriptiure? That we are the source of the problems in the Church today!?!?!

When Paul disagreed he went out of his way to tell others to welcome them .. I only wish that those at AiG and ICR would do the same with us.

Don't mistake my anger at what they have done for being angry with you....but yes I am passionate. About the word of God and His creation. Is this bad?!?!?

Do I tell them that they are abusing scripture? Nope. Do I tell them that they are heretics? Nope. I know that salvation doesn't rest on this. Doesn't mean I can't be passionate about this. we have students going off to secular colleges who face intellectual attack from atheists. They better be strong in the faith. So yes, you better believe I am passionate and I make no apologies about that.

Again, I haven't gone to AiG or to ICR websites and pick fights. You came here. YOu want to defend YEC. That's fine....let's do it. Let's stop focusing on my anger and actually talk about the evidence.

I'm passionate about the evidence that shows a young Universe and a Young earth and there is plenty of it out there (A cracked up earth from a GLOBAL flood, catastrophe sized fossil beds, unusual plant and animal fossils from a unique pre-flood world, comets that should be long gone).

Okay, let's start by you going through my article and showing me were it's wrong, or any of the other methods that show the earth is wrong. You came here to defend let's go.

You can scream that this evidence has already been interpreted for an Old Earth. I say; who cares?

Okay, YOu claimed that I needed to be objective....I said I have been objective and have decided that the evidence says old. You have said that the evidence says young....let's go. Show the evidence....let's stop talking about it and go for it. I've already provided two articles, one about the radiometric dating and one about the "blood in the dinosaurs". Go for it, tell me why they are wrong.

God promised that there would never be another flood like what Noah experienced. Well if it was a local flood, He lied. However, if it was a global flood, like the text plainly reads, then what we see, as a planet that couldn't be covered with water anymore, shows why God's promise is true.

Can you show me a topographic map of the region/valley that would have been needed to be filled for a local flood to have worked? This is the only question that I really want addressed more then anything else. Don't forget Mt. Ararat would have been covered up.

There has been multiple threads on the flood on the God and science forums. They have addressed the issue of topographical maps. IF you'd like, you can join in the thread there.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=32856

Hey, I'm willing to talk the evidence. My apologies if I assumed that you wanted to. If you want to here is a good place to start.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... nexplained

(this also addresses both the flood geology and the comet worries)

Adam, again, my anger is not with you. I really appreciate your testimony and the fact that GOd has touched you in this way. I also know very genuine and sincere believers who are YEC. I know they love GOd and His word. I *really* really wish that more YEc were more like you. They are many YEC here who are also like you. Unfortunately, it has not been my ecperience with most. Immediately, people assume I have fallen prey to naturalistic philosophy, that I am an evolutionist, that I place science above the Word, that I am an apostate, heretic (yes, those exact words), and that I must not love scripture as much as they do (yes, another bomb that is constantly launched). Do you really think that my response is flippant or unreasonable? I *wish* that they would not immediately assume these things.

[zoegirl]

BTW, here's is a source for the blood in the bones

//www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsle ... 200407.pdf

and from the main site

//www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

Just in case you wanted to know the full story

I couldn't open the first one. What's so conclusive about the second one? The tissue was still there. 4400 years couldn't produce decayed tissue?

Aminly I wnat you to see the disingenuous actions on the Part of Carl Weiland. Not only did he LEAVE out infomration from his article form the original researchers, he only selected those that supported his own desires. Then AiG continually used this misinformation in later sources.

I will find the orginal article.
Her eyou go
//www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full.pdf+html

In the introduction you will read that it is understood that prophyrin rings can be protected from decay from the deep tissues.
BTW, She is a strong CHristian who was personally annoyed at the abuses of her data.

They found porphyrin rings that have also been found in CHlorophyll molecuel that have been in ancient fossilized beds of forests.

Hey, what do you think about Niagara Falls? If we let that thing erode back into Lake Erie the way it wants to, I bet we would end up with another unique post flood Canyon. How come so many scientists feel fine saying that the canyon on Mars was rapid erosion but Grand Canyon can't be?



Without nitpicking personality or minor flaws would you say that this should be disregarded as bad information?

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5665691163985573518&ei=TrslSaiUO5PuqAK08OHQCA&q=hovind+4&hl=en&dur=3

[zoegirl]

The Word and the World fit perfectly without us imposing contemporary theories and ideas that can't be proven into clever eisegesis of scripture.

At the end of the day what is so tough about the fact that God “baaraaed” a mature universe in six days?

(emphasis mine)

Adam,

The above statements are precisely the problem that Zoegirl, myself, and every other OECer everywhere else have with YECers and why we get emotional, angry, passionate, whatever. The implication is stark that if one does not believe in a 6 day creation then they are imposing contemporary ideas into scripture. We totally reject this out of hand and we assert that our reading is just as plain and just as literal as yours. We are simply not imposing anything on the text.

What is so tough about God creating in 6 days? First let me ask you this, how long do you think 14 billion years is for an eternal, timeless being? Second, would you believe God could have created in 6 nano-seconds? I do, we all here do. So please don't go making implicit accusations that we're the ones limiting God's powers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The plain truth is that we see complete and total harmony between scripture (as plainly and literally read) and our observations of the universe around us, and we see this harmony reconciled with an old earth and an old universe.

These are the problems we've ALWAYS encountered with YECers and why these types of discussions almost always end up heavily moderated. My hope is that this does not happen here and we're able to carry on a semi-intelligent conversation.

P.S. Take your time reading the flood links, they are rather extensive.

Amen, this is a common, commmon response I hear from students. "Well, aren't you saying that God cou;dn't have done it that way?!" and my response is "nope, God could have created it in an instant if He so watned, that's How MAJESTIC and POWERFUL he is.

The wuestion is not COuld He DO it. but rather HOw did He do it.

Gonna go home now....

[B. W.]

Hi Adam,

We who are OEC respect YEC and even understand them as many of us were at one time YEC. That is why we can respect YEC.

Many in YEC hierarchy uses a common tactic that basically threatens and demeans OEC Christian's as being — well not Christian. This is the wrong approach.

I rejoice that you are a member of the body of Christ. I think we all can learn from the first century Church a lesson:

Gal 2:11, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…”ESV

It appears that YEC hierarchy has a tendency toward strife and division and James has this to says about such strife…

James 3:15-18, “…15 That kind of wisdom does not come from above. No, it is worldly, self-centered, and demonic. 16 For wherever jealousy and rivalry exist, there is disorder and every kind of evil. 17 However, the wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure, then peace-loving, gentle, willing to yield, full of compassion and good fruits, and without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is grown from the seed of peace planted by peacemakers.” ISV

The thing that changed me from YEC to OEC is this: It was not until the forth day of creation that any semblance of a 24 hour day came into being. Despite that, the Hebrew word translated day also can denote an “indefinite period of time.”

How could a 24 hour day begin when there was no means to indicate this before? As it is written:

Genesis 1:14, “And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years…”

It was not until the fourth indefinite period of time that there was any kind of 24 hour day possible. The context of the creation account would indicate that the Six days God chose to create in were all an indefinite time frame translated by the word day. A day can refer to any period of time defined by context the word has been wrtten in. In fact, we use the word days the same ways. Look at this example: in my grandfather's day America had more moral's than this day.

OEC are not heretics because we humbly disagree with YEC point of view. In fact, we respect YEC and wish no ill will toward YEC nor do we cite any YEC as hieratic. We love you as a brother in Christ.

Adam, you have much to say and contribute to this forum and we welcome your ideas. All I can ask is for you to humbly ask yourself how could there be a 24 hour day when none existed prior to Genesis 1:14?

I admire you zeal for the word of God but this debate of YEC and OEC is not an essential doctrine.

I have watched many YEC'er's puff there chest out in pride and declare their loyalty to the strict interpretation of scripture, as though this in itself pleases God to have such warriors as they themselves are. That is pride, spiritual pride.

You are too good a Christian to fall into that trap James wrote about so long ago!

God Bless you my friend!
-
-
-

[Adam_777]

Adam, you have much to say and contribute to this forum and we welcome your ideas. All I can ask is for you to humbly ask yourself how could there be a 24 hour day when none existed prior to Genesis 1:14?

Well I don't know but God said it was a day. Exodus says it took six days. I reckon God knew what a day was going to be on the fourth day and planned ahead. It's not that far-fetched to me. I know a day isn't always a day but when they're qualified with evening and morning and this translates right over to the days that the sun is around then I feel like letting God tell the story.

I guess the starting point of the conversation for me is how certain can we be about the information we glean from the amount of radioactive material in mineral samples? I think the coolest part of YEC teachings starts by recognizing that our interpretations of the evidence aren't always rock solid because of a consensus view.

The science that shows the earth is round (photos and a good fly around) and that the earth orbits the sun is much more vigorous and testable then trying to use naturalistic tells to be conclusive about what happened a 1000 years ago, let alone 4500 to 6000 years ago. The best information that we ever have about the past is always the records kept by men or better yet by God through men. We know more about Jesus time because of good records. We know very little about the dark ages because men didn't keep records as well. All the naturalistic science in the world can't make up for that.

There is lots of good science we do all the time on this planet. We get to use all kinds of cool mathematical repeating science with a bunch of neat instrumentation. We get to figure out how things work and name what their made of. We can blow things up, melt them down, all kinds of fun science stuff. I would hasten to say that origins talk is stuck in the hypothetical speculation end because we can't repeat it. Did anyone read my essay from the perspective of a machinist? Here is the link. I could maybe start a new thread and see what kind of feedback I get here from the dilemma I set up:

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5626523

I admire you zeal for the word of God but this debate of YEC and OEC is not an essential doctrine.

I completely agree. I'm not sneaking up on anyone here and I have good reasons for believing this to be true (just like you have reasons for believing what you believe to be true.) and some of my reasons do step on toes because I see that interpretations get… well confusing to stay respectful.

I'm glad we had this talk and I'm not mad at Zoegirl. I just felt like I was being held responsible for Ham and Hovind's social ills. I don't find them dangerous and I do enjoy their presentations. Their problem is the same as most Christian's problem. They are passionate. Passionate people step on toes. Jesus stepped on toes. Paul stepped on toes. Zoegirl steps on toes.

I have watched many YEC'er's puff there chest out in pride and declare their loyalty to the strict interpretation of scripture, as though this in itself pleases God to have such warriors as they themselves are. That is pride, spiritual pride.

You are too good a Christian to fall into that trap James wrote about so long ago!

I appreciate that and the glory belongs to Christ. Honestly, where Hovind and Ham drop the ball I pray God gives me the tools to communicate the way Christ and the Apostles did even if it's only in a small sphere of influence. If I felt like I had nothing to learn from Christians not like me do you think I'd be here? I just hope people don't write YECs healthy contributions off because they aren't always nice enough. YECs have valid concerns that shouldn't be ignored because they're in a perceived minority. I think Hovind and Ham developed some thick skin because of all the flack they've received throughout their own ministries which translated into some unwanted callousness, I'm sure. I'm not here to pick fights. I'm just transparent so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.

God Bless you my friend!

God Bless you too friend!

[zoegirl]

Adam, you have much to say and contribute to this forum and we welcome your ideas. All I can ask is for you to humbly ask yourself how could there be a 24 hour day when none existed prior to Genesis 1:14?

Well I don't know but God said it was a day. Exodus says it took six days. I reckon God knew what a day was going to be on the fourth day and planned ahead. It's not that far-fetched to me. I know a day isn't always a day but when they're qualified with evening and morning and this translates right over to the days that the sun is around then I feel like letting God tell the story.

So even though He had not made up the structures that decide a day, it's still a day.

THis seems so limiting to God and forcing a meaning that isn't there

I guess the starting point of the conversation for me is how certain can we be about the information we glean from the amount of radioactive material in mineral samples? I think the coolest part of YEC teachings starts by recognizing that our interpretations of the evidence aren't always rock solid because of a consensus view.

First, the evidence isn't rock solid because of a consensus view. It's not the "popular" theory. Its a consensus view because we get multiple data showing the same thing that means it is rock solid. Different methods showing old data. It's as if there is this idea that all of the scientists are sitting around gleefully sharing stories and developing conspiracies. And then this grand "consensus" gangs up on the minority.

It's like a crime scene where the fingerprints, DNA, blood spatter, gunpowder residue, testimonies, time of death, AND motive all fits. Each tells their own story and point to the same criminal. In a court of law, this ensures a rock solid prosecution.

Well there are plenty of CHristian scientists who have no ulterior motive (but of course, there the ones who have given in to the consesus ) to skew the data.

And the scientific community is veyr competitive. Do you really think that somebody who fudges data will last long?

The science that shows the earth is round (photos and a good fly around) and that the earth orbits the sun is much more vigorous and testable then trying to use naturalistic tells to be conclusive about what happened a 1000 years ago, let alone 4500 to 6000 years ago. The best information that we ever have about the past is always the records kept by men or better yet by God through men. We know more about Jesus time because of good records. We know very little about the dark ages because men didn't keep records as well. All the naturalistic science in the world can't make up for that.

Se, to me, this seems like a cop-out. "We just can't really know for sure".

But if you really examine the methods, they are trustworthy.


And, btw, if you are wanting a Hebrew word that means a long periods of time? Guess which one you would choose....yep, Yom.

There is lots of good science we do all the time on this planet. We get to use all kinds of cool mathematical repeating science with a bunch of neat instrumentation. We get to figure out how things work and name what their made of. We can blow things up, melt them down, all kinds of fun science stuff. I would hasten to say that origins talk is stuck in the hypothetical speculation end because we can't repeat it.

I know this will make you mad, but yes, we CAN know a lot. What method would you like to know about? Read my article I posted about radiometric dating. So far all I hear is "we can't really know for sure" and "inconclusive" and "hypothetical".

Did anyone read my essay from the perspective of a machinist? Here is the link. I could maybe start a new thread and see what kind of feedback I get here from the dilemma I set up:

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5626523

Well, I did...

The documentation that many companies require is staggering as well. Just like good scientists, good managers know that quality control and troubleshooting requires precise documentation to see were the problems are and how to solve them in a responsible methodological manner.

Good, then you realize that scientist are diligent, hard-working, and scrupoulous people who know they will be scrutinized by their peers (who are all too willing to criticize)

I have worked with my fair share of people who would theorize why a process or set up had to be done a certain way. As a young machinist/draftsman I regularly had good and bad theories for how to do things…“The best way” (or before I was humbled…“The only way”). The nature of my ideas became quickly evident with a success or a crash or someone simply coming in with a competing idea that shortened cycle times and/or improved the quality of the end product.

Yep, exactly like scientists. Each ecperiment is scrutinized and critiqued , each method refined and when someone thinks that they have "the best way" someone comes along and either adds or refines the method and then tests it and repeats it to see if the results is valid.

After a while I started realizing something. Even experienced people didn't necessarily have things “all figured out”. They had found something that worked and whether they understood what was happening or not, they unwittingly adopted bad ideas, here and there, because their processes…well…worked. Basically, a bad idea or theory would lurk in the background unchallenged while a successful process continued. This “bad idea” only becomes a hindrance when an improvement wouldn't be realized thanks to some experienced person's insistence that they “know” why it wouldn't work, thanks to the bad idea or bad theory they have. (This is often when new companies are birthed. A handful of people are confident in a new process that the orthodoxy of an established company rejects as unfeasible because of some faulty understanding.)

Again, exactly like the scientific community. Sure, there are exceptions. But the MANY many scientists out there are extremely critical (in a good way) of the methods of their own and others experiments. YOu pride yourself and other machinists on the care that you take in your process of development. You take great pride in your instruments being exactly right. Have you ever thought that the scientists out there are pretty meticulous? YOu obviously understand the process invovled and yet somehow scientists are painted with a broad brush. The scientists suddenly become conspiracist who stick with a bad idea.

By the way, I don't think this is some mutually exclusive problem for one particular group of people. If we're honest, we are all guilty of being the person with the stubborn “bad idea” from time to time, scientist and layman alike.

Ah, but for some reason, you are willing to laud your own professions ability to curb your excesses and then blithely throw the professional integrity and intelligence of the scientifc community away life *that*. Wow....

Especially after success in some area, and some form of professional acknowledgement, we feel insulted when someone less experienced then us challenges our methods or pronouncements. As a professional, and a person who enjoys talking with young machinists, it is a constant battle to check my pride and be objective when they are telling me why they're doing something a certain way, especially when it conflicts with the way I would choose to view something or do something. I'll only correct them if I see a glaring problem in their methodology even if their aproach is different then mine. I'm sure many people here think I'm the one riddled with bad ideas and vice versa. Let's save this for later. I want to first know if my presentation is found to be coherent

Oh boy, you should sit in on a presentation made by a scientist within the circle of other scientists. scientists are quick to critique an experiment. They have to be. If you think it is embarassing to be called out by someone younger in a presentation, you can imagine the embarassment if you are called out after being published. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with you that we are all sinful and scientists are just as prone to favor their own hypothesis, but most hypothesis are wrong and an experienced scientist knows to expect failure. It's disappointing but not unexpected. And discoveries are made by the young and old alike. IF you can fight your pride, then so can sicentists, especially when their statements will be publicly viewed by others.

I admire you zeal for the word of God but this debate of YEC and OEC is not an essential doctrine.

I completely agree. I'm not sneaking up on anyone here and I have good reasons for believing this to be true (just like you have reasons for believing what you believe to be true.) and some of those reasons do step on toes because I see that interpretations get… well confusing to stay respectful.

I'm glad we had this talk and I'm not mad at Zoegirl. I just felt like I was being held responsible for Ham and Hovind's social ills.

I said over and over again that I wasn't angry at you!

I don't find them dangerous and I do enjoy their presentations.

ummm, this may have something to do with the fact that you agree with them and that they aren't calling *you* a heretic or the cause of the problem in the church today.

Their problem is the same as most Christian's problem. They are passionate. Passionate people step on toes. Jesus stepped on toes. Paul stepped on toes. Zoegirl steps on toes.

Theirobnoxious behavior and being a jerk makes me angry of course, and being called a heretic would make anybody angry. But what makes me passionate is their lack of arguments and lack of evidence AND their manipulation of date. Carl Weiland and the dinosaur bones (btw, a bit of silence on your part there...) is just the tip of the iceberg. It has taken the YEC camp over 50 years to stop using the moon dust example (and we STILL see some of them using it) and to stop using the Paluxi footprints example (again, some still do!). And then they have the audacity to claim that scientists are stubborn!??!?

I have watched many YEC'er's puff there chest out in pride and declare their loyalty to the strict interpretation of scripture, as though this in itself pleases God to have such warriors as they themselves are. That is pride, spiritual pride.

You are too good a Christian to fall into that trap James wrote about so long ago!

I appreciate that and the glory belongs to Christ. Honestly, where Hovind and Ham drop the ball I pray God gives me the tools to communicate the way Christ and the Apostles did even if it's only in a small sphere of influence. If I felt like I had nothing to learn from Christians not like me do you think I'd be here? I just hope people don't write YECs healthy contributions off because they aren't always nice enough.

No I write them off becuase their interpretation of data stinks. That they make me angry is the icing on the cake. Please understand me....you are very, very nice....I still disagree with you. Your niceness means I still like talking with you And hope that we continue in the discussion.

YECs have valid concerns that shouldn't be ignored because they're in a perceived minority. I think Hovind and Ham developed some thick skin because of all the flack they've received throughout their own ministries which translated into some unwanted callousness, I'm sure.

well, I'll be honest here....I think you are being too generous with them. They are big boys and Christian to boot. That they have essentially caused division in the church over a topic that does not deserve this division earns no points in my book. Poor babies.... Paul may have had a major disagreement in the New Testament but he was very clear in scripture that Christ was all. I think one of the churches that has done it Very well has been the Presbyterian Church of America. They have declared that both are valid views and that this will not be an issue that will divide them....(and we had a church member leave church becuase of our church would not come down on the side of YEc....sad, isn't it?)

I'm not here to pick fights. I'm just transparent so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.

and I appreciate that. I hope you can examine what we present and weigh the evidence.

aDAM, I read the rest of your article and the crux of your article is whether we can examine things in the past. You used your example exming a part when you didn't see it being made.

But that's exactly why we study the creation. God's creation IS testable and we can examine it. Please read the section of the article about the radiometric dating methods. It is very well written and it clearly examines the common critcisms from YEC. There ARE ways to examine creation. To say otherwise is just not correct.

I have been readin ght ecomments on your essay and most have addressed what ever I would say. Saw Himatolophus there...he used to post here. His commets were good.
Peace
Zg

[B. W.]

Well I don't know but God said it was a day. Exodus says it took six days. I reckon God knew what a day was going to be on the fourth day and planned ahead. It's not that far-fetched to me. I know a day isn't always a day but when they're qualified with evening and morning and this translates right over to the days that the sun is around then I feel like letting God tell the story....

Hi Adam,

I am afraid the Hebrew grammar does not agree with you. In Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 the spelling of the word is different than used in verses 14. For example, in verse 14 the first word translated day grammar uses the definite article added to it. The definite article used with 'day' identifies something specific about this word in regards to time. Context always helps define a word's meaning as well as how the author uses it elsewhere.

The context of verse 14 is speaking of season and years; thus the second time the word 'day' is written by the author, the writer uses the Waw Conjunctive, Plural, Prefixed Preposition spelling form. This clarifies that a certain amount of single days will now make-up seasons and years. A single day, from context of verses 14-18, consist of one daylight period and one dark night period; hence a 24 hour cycle as the context suggest and these now make seasons and mark years by use of a certian amount of single days to mark time. So verse 14-18 reveals when the 24 cycle of what we think as a single day came into being.

On the other hand, in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 the author uses the pure noun form with no articles, constructs, etc and etc. Elsewhere in Genesis where this word is spelled (by the same Author) the same way that it was spelled in verses 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 its usage denotes many days — not a single day but a group days (like forty days). It is also used to identify an unknown day from out of many days. It is always used to denote an indefinite period of unknown time or a specific time in the future.

Therefore the writer of Genesis uses the word translated 'day' as used in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 to mean indefinite period of unknown time.

Have a nice day!!
-
-
-

[B. W.]

...Well I don't know but God said it was a day. Exodus says it took six days. I reckon God knew what a day was going to be on the fourth day and planned ahead. It's not that far-fetched to me. I know a day isn't always a day but when they're qualified with evening and morning and this translates right over to the days that the sun is around then I feel like letting God tell the story...

In Exodus 20:11 the Hebrew word translated days is in the plural noun from and the word before it is used as a conjunction with a Cardinal Number. When used this way, it denotes any type of passage of time. It is interesting to note, when the word translated 'days' in Hebrew when used without the Cardinal Number before it is translated as it is in Genesis 4:3 as:

“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.” (JPS)

Again in with an adj before it Genesis 21:34 reads: “And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days.”(JPS)

Basically, how the word translated days is spelled in Exodus 20:11 and elsewhere in bible is used to denote passage of time involving many-many 24 hour days. In the case of Exodus 20:11 the word translated 'days' is followed by the word 'created' written in the Qal Perfect tense.

The Qal Perfect is used as 'active voice' denoting perfective action to be viewed as a whole in its entirety. This points back to Genesis 1 account of creation in its entirety; therefore, the meaning of 'days' used in Ex 20:11 correlates to each day of creation as denoting individual stages of 'indefinite periods of time' involving perfecting. Each of these stages are called days (using the pure noun form in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

This is further verified in Genesis 1:31 when God saw all he made as “good” which again denotes creation reached a good stage of being perfected. The words translated in Gen 1:31 as 'very good' are verb and adj forms: very (adverb) and good (adjective).

The adverb qualifies the time, place, or manner in which an action is accomplished. The Adj modifies the noun or another adj by describing attributes, qualities of the noun or other adj used. In this case the noun is translated as a person 'God' and in the context of creation God saw this in the manner (adverb) of 'becoming very good' and thus the sixth stage of creation ended.

Why I say this is because we have the book of Revelations that speaks when the Perfect will come ( Rev 21:1). Therefore, I can see why these grammars forms were used the way they were!!!! Profoundly brillant!!! No human mind could have devised this...

Then God rested from creating; thus, entering a new stage when God walked in the cool of the day in his creation, enjoying what he made. So it is also interesting to note, that while God rested — the serpent beguiled Adam and Eve: ponder this a bit more…

The context of Genesis chapter one concerning days of creation seem to denote stages or process involving what we would term as indefinite periods of time involving many individual 24 hour days grouped together to make one day as to the Lord's time keeping, not ours.

Here is one more thing — how many species of animals were there when Adam named them (i.e. name denotes characteristic's) and God honored what characteristics Adam gave them by naming them. This would indeed would take more than one 24 hour day to complete. Ponder this a bit more... ( A tiger will eat a grazing animal, a monkey will help harvest fruit from the trees so fruit trees do not choke each other out....hmmmm)

In conclusion, Exodus 20:11 is referring to the stages called days of creation just how the word form is used elsewhere denoting many days or a day set out from amongst many and not a 24 hour day. This is why I say the grammar does not support a literal six 24 hour days of creation.

Again, have a nice day... -
-
-

[rodyshusband]

At the extreme risk of arousing more controversy, I have to add my experiences with YEC. I understand a good part of their argument (and forgive me if this has already been brought up; I despise redundancy in debate)...
This is not directed at out friend Adam_777, but many other YEC's believe OEC goes outside the scripture, thus "adding to the Word". In addition, they believe we (OEC) refuse to take the Bible in the "literal" sense. I too, have been called a "heretic" in addition to "contemplative" and an "apostate"...simply because I refuse to accept the literal, 6 day translation, the main sticking point.
Personally, I see this as one of those debates that divides many believers (along with the "rapture" issue), sometimes to the point of rather extreme hostility.