OEC v. YEC (Not a competition)

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:40 pm

Thanks, Zoe. I will check your source.

btw - do you want to continue the discussion and see where it goes from here, or do you feel it is pointless?

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:45 pm

Forum Monk wrote:Thanks, Zoe. I will check your source.

btw - do you want to continue the discussion and see where it goes from here, or do you feel it is pointless?

Do want to know why you think time wasn't created at the beginning?

disregarding the age question, do you think the Big Bang has any validity as the event in Genesis?

I think the days question has already been established....Neither of us will be convinced of the other...

I am willing to tackle Progressive creation, but you already know kinda where I stand, although not sure where you stand (I know you have stated that microevolution is no big deal, knowing that there are limitations to the event)

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:31 pm

Forum Monk wrote: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.

agreed

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.

agreed.....and neither you nor I would suggest that God hadn't figured out the existence of non-literal literary devices until the time of Christ.

"Yom" is not a figure of speech.

neither is "temple" or "body", but all three can be used in a non-literal way

It is used in a literal context...

you say it is, I say it isn't....but neither declaration constitutes a proof.

.... and that context is corroborated in other scripture which I have already noted.

corroborated? You mention Hebrews 4 where God's rest is discussed in verses 1 to 11. A popular understanding of Hebrews 4 is that we who believe may enter God's rest, being that rest of the seventh day...so it appears that the rest of the seventh day still continues to this day....which is a little bit more than 24 hours. In other words, none of the verses you supplied requires the use of "Yom" in Genesis to mean 24 hours. One can understand "Yom" to mean a period of time within the symbolic creation "week" with the seventh period of time having a actual 24 hour counterpart in the real week....and all the verses you cited still make sense with that understanding.

I apologize for my erroneous conclusion.

accepted

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.

some outside, yes, but some inside too.

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

here is a good example of evidence w/i the text that should cry out for a non-literal understanding. Look at what is supposed to have happened w/i your 24 hour sixth day:
1) God makes the wild land animals
2) God makes the livestock
3) God decides to make man for the stated purpose of having man rule over all creatures
4) God creates a single man, Adam
5) God puts Adam in the garden
6) God instructs Adam on what to do in the garden
7) God recognizes that Adam shouldn't be alone
8 ) God brings to Adam all the livestock, all the birds and all the beasts of the field which are all given names by Adam
9) No suitable helper is found for Adam
10) God creates Eve

It has already been pointed out to you that item #8 should take much longer than a mere 24 hours....but apparently that isn't enough, so please focus on items #7, #8 and #9. Am I really to believe that an all knowing God was actually looking for a helper for Adam before He created Eve? If the donkey could talk and crack wise like Eddie Murphy, then Eve would not have been needed? We know the qualifications required for Adam's ideal helper b/c Eve was created for that purpose. Is it that God wasn't sure what Adam needed or had forgotten what exactly He had created so that it was necessary to take inventory of creation and double check to see if any proper helper was out there? With a literal interpretation you should be answering those questions in the affirmative (except for the Eddie Murphy bit). It is one thing to look foolish for the sake of God and consider such foolish appearance to be some sort of badge of honor/sign of greater faithfulness, but it is quite another thing to look foolish for the sake of a literal interpretation that not only makes the holder look foolish, but also makes God look foolish....and that seems to be what a literal interpretation of items 7, 8, 9 and 10 achieves.

To me, this means when every evidence before my face is contrary to the word of God. I will stand with God.

standing with God is a different thing than standing with a literal interpretation

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....

exactly, if we take a non-literal passage and interpret it literally we are adding a meaning

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:39 pm

nice, I was getting tired

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:54 pm

ttoews wrote:....and neither you nor I would suggest that God hadn't figured out the existence of non-literal literary devices until the time of Christ....neither is "temple" or "body", but all three can be used in a non-literal way

I agree. Any words can be used in a non-literal way, but I do not think God plays word games. When Jesus, for example spoke of heaven, hell, the flood and creation. He clarified his meanings in plain language to his disciples and he told them "if it were not so, I would have told you". If some other meaning was related in the creation account, I believe he would have told us and not left us on our own to eventually figure it out.

you say it is, I say it isn't....but neither declaration constitutes a proof.

Not only I say it. The credible biblical scholars and hebrew linguists also agree.

You mention Hebrews 4 where God's rest is discussed in verses 1 to 11.....and all the verses you cited still make sense with that understanding.

If the Hebrews citation is troublesome for you we needn't consider as the other verses stand on thier own. Let us only consider the Exodus verses which are very clear in their meaning and intent.

here is a good example of evidence w/i the text that should cry out for a non-literal understanding.

If you have already stated that you believe God can do this one day

I don't believe that anyone is saying that it is impossible for God to do X in 24 hours...

Then why to think it foolish for me to accept that and believe he did?

Am I really to believe that an all knowing God was actually looking for a helper for Adam before He created Eve?

God knew what kind of help mate Adam needed. God was not using Adam to accomplish his purpose in selection as well. God was showing Adam the purpose of these animals and it was necessary for Adam to know these animals were not suitable mates. Had God just acted, man would not have learned something which needed to be shown.

It is one thing to look foolish for the sake of God and consider such foolish appearance to be some sort of badge of honor/sign of greater faithfulness...

This is your erroneous conclusion. Your judgment of me and my intentions is misguided.

but it is quite another thing to look foolish for the sake of a literal interpretation that not only makes the holder look foolish, but also makes God look foolish....and that seems to be what a literal interpretation of items 7, 8, 9 and 10 achieves.

I don't believe anyone looks foolish for believing God's word in the light of other scripture and the weight of centuries of biblical scholarship. There is no reason not to believe it. We all agree God can do it.

Science can not explain all things. Where in the cosmology of science is the place of heaven and hell? How did Jesus walk on water or heal the lame or the man with the withered hand? How did the prophet make the axe head float? How did Moses part the Red Sea? It is natural to be inquisitive about these things but we shouldn't rewrite the bible because we think we have understood how. Creation was a miracle.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Wed May 23, 2007 7:50 am

Monk, i hope you don't think we're ganging up on you

Science can not explain all things. Where in the cosmology of science is the place of heaven and hell? How did Jesus walk on water or heal the lame or the man with the withered hand? How did the prophet make the axe head float? How did Moses part the Red Sea? It is natural to be inquisitive about these things but we shouldn't rewrite the bible because we think we have understood how. Creation was a miracle.

I don't think anyone is re-writing the bible. Many of God's miracles (ie, the red sea) leave effects that we can study. Sure, we will never know how he did it (short of saying he blew really hard) but we can sometimes see the effects. For example, if we were around in Jesus time, we could see the healed hand. And i have heard of a study that is looking at the bottom of the red sea (or the sea of reeds, if i understand it correctly) and seeing patterns in the sand that would correspond to it 'parting'.

The purpose of a miracle is to show one is sent from God (roughly speaking). How can we see the miracle of creation without looking into creation?

So, we are not trying to re-write it, just understand it. It only seems like 're-writing' because it is a different interpretation. If we weren't free to interpret, there wouldn't be different denominations.

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Wed May 23, 2007 5:36 pm

Forum Monk wrote: When Jesus, for example spoke of heaven, hell, the flood and creation. He clarified his meanings in plain language to his disciples and he told them "if it were not so, I would have told you".

there is much about heaven, hell, the flood and creation that He hasn't clarified....that He hasn't told us....and it seems that you may be taking that passage out of context.

If some other meaning was related in the creation account, I believe he would have told us and not left us on our own to eventually figure it out.

this belief is an expression of your presupposition.....In the "if you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in three days" example that I gave you earlier, Jesus didn't clarify His meaning for His disciples....it was something that He allowed them to eventually figure out. The OT is laced with things wrt the Messiah that weren't grasped until much later...your belief that "he would have told us and not left us on our own to eventually figure it out" is not based on how God has dealt with things in the OT and the NT.

Not only I say it. The credible biblical scholars and hebrew linguists also agree.

and credible biblical scholars and hebrew linguists agree with me....that is why they are credible

If the Hebrews citation is troublesome for you we needn't consider as the other verses stand on thier own. Let us only consider the Exodus verses which are very clear in their meaning and intent.

as I said before, one can understand "Yom" to mean a period of time within the symbolic creation "week" with the seventh period of time having a actual 24 hour counterpart in the real week....and all the exodus verses you cited still make sense with that understanding.

If you have already stated that you believe God can do this one day ....Then why to think it foolish for me to accept that and believe he did?

it is not about what God can do in a day, but what Adam can achieve in a day. For God to do it in a day, He could also make the sun and moon to stop moving, so as to give Himself more time in the day (hmm, or should I have said that He could make the earth to stop rotating?). Anyhow, your literal interpretation makes no mention of the miraculous in association with Adam's naming of all the birds, livestock and beasts of the field and of Adam's consideration of each one as a possible helper.

God knew what kind of help mate Adam needed. God was not using Adam to accomplish his purpose in selection as well. ....Had God just acted, man would not have learned something which needed to be shown.

So you think that God didn't give a full disclosure to Adam as to what was going on...rather He let Adam come to a realization after making observations for himself. Kinda sounds like my view wrt "yom", doesn't it?

God was showing Adam the purpose of these animals and it was necessary for Adam to know these animals were not suitable mates.

this just adds to your problems...now, on top of naming the animals Adam must take the additional time necessary to understand their purpose...and come to the realization that a turkey (and such the like) is not suitable as a mate. (One would think that by the 10th animal Adam would have simply cut to the chase with this find a helper project and suggested that a female of his own species might be what's missing)

This is your erroneous conclusion. Your judgment of me and my intentions is misguided.

I apologize then.

I don't believe anyone looks foolish for believing God's word in the light of other scripture and the weight of centuries of biblical scholarship. There is no reason not to believe it. We all agree God can do it.

God could have sent Christ to save the would centuries earlier, He could have returned in judgement already....to repeat, it is not about what God can do, it is about what He actually did and about what He actually meant in Gen 1 and 2.

Science can not explain all things.

nobody I know...not even those most devoted to science, suggest this

Where in the cosmology of science is the place of heaven and hell? How did Jesus walk on water or heal the lame or the man with the withered hand? How did the prophet make the axe head float? How did Moses part the Red Sea? It is natural to be inquisitive about these things but we shouldn't rewrite the bible because we think we have understood how.

again, no one is rewriting the Bible...but we should strive for a better understanding of God's word and shouldn't feel obliged to honor a medieval interpretation of it or any other ill-informed interpretation

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Wed May 23, 2007 7:29 pm

It seems we can carry this on for quite awhile and each of us can argue to have the weight of biblical scholarship behind us and each of can quote supporting scripture and points of view for each of our 'problems' with the others point of view.

I am also certain we can each answer the other with alternative points of view from external websites as we both know (I presume) that we are not the first to have this debate, nor shall we be the last. It is an active debate between Christians and Atheists, YEC and OEC and within the sects of modern Judaism. And as long as the debates rage we can find fresh thoughts to continue in our disagreement.

Frankly, I don't have the stamina to continue arguing the points to every individual who steps in this fray and feels at liberty to pick apart my frailities and my often poorly worded attempts to express my view point. Any one who cares to know my point of view is at liberty to go back and read it as I have not been shy about expressing it.

It seems to me this quotation from you really is the bottom line of sorts:

ttoews wrote:again, no one is rewriting the Bible...but we should strive for a better understanding of God's word and shouldn't feel obliged to honor a medieval interpretation of it or any other ill-informed interpretation

Actually, I think my point of view predates the middle ages.

My opinion is this: Yom means day in the context of the evening and morning. It does not mean long of period of time in this context. It is my opinion, that the creation week is not symbolic, allegorical or mythological, it was a miraculous act of God which we now are free to examine and study the results.

It does not make sense to me that God would create the natural laws, suspend a chunk of matter in emptiness, fire the big-bang and 15 billion years later we are here questioning it. This is the same point of view the secularists hold except they ignore the part about "god created" natural laws. Using the same science and same laws they 'prove' that God is not needed. Many on this site fully comply with the secular point of view, except they say "God did it" as if that somehow is a "better" way to look at it. Let's take the secular ideas and "christianize" them.

What did God do? Allow nature to takes its course while tweaking from time to time to ensure the desired result?

I believe that by adopting the secular theories and thinking to explain the "how" of God, we are not setting ourselves apart from the world. If anything, the secularists look at our little improvement to their ideas; "god did it"; and laugh us to scorn.

I believe it is better to take another stand, completely apart from the secular view and claim Genesis was a fully miraculous act from start to finish. It is a view that is NOT outside the realm of possibility, it will stand firm when science theories all change in the future (as they most assuredly shall) and distinguishes Christians as a people "set apart" from world opinion. Yes, they will still ridcule but they won't be ridiculing because we agree with them.

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Wed May 23, 2007 7:58 pm

Forum Monk wrote:It seems we can carry this on for quite awhile and each of us can argue to have the weight of biblical scholarship behind us and each of can quote supporting scripture and points of view for each of our 'problems' with the others point of view.

It's like deja vu all over again... huh, ttoews?

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:45 pm

FFC wrote:It's like deja vu all over again... huh, ttoews?

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:58 pm

Forum Monk wrote:Frankly, I don't have the stamina to continue arguing the points to every individual who steps in this fray....

A cease fire is then declared (with your permission of course)!
Thanks for the discussion...(I believe it was my very first on this particular topic)...may God bless you and reward your faithfulness

I believe that by adopting the secular theories and thinking to explain the "how" of God, we are not setting ourselves apart from the world. If anything, the secularists look at our little improvement to their ideas; "god did it"; and laugh us to scorn.

I come from an Anabaptist background....and we have been very keen to set ourselves apart from the world....(unfortunately many of my brethern have done so by following a bizarre legalism)....personally I strive to set myself apart from the world by following Christ's declaration at John 13:35 which reads, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
If I have failed to properly show my love for a brother in this discussion with you, I again apologize. Cheers.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu May 24, 2007 10:33 am

Thank you for your blessing ttoews. And may God bless you as well.

I need a break from this debate to be sure. But I see other subjects crying out for discussion. Maybe as I continue to discuss some other things you will agree with my point of view and maybe on some things you will not. In any case, may we never exhibit anything but brotherly love for one another.

Regards to you.