Evidence for God from Science

Hi ugo,

Yes morning and evening are used as an analogy for the birth and death of humans in Ps. 90:3-10. This covers 70 to 80 years. Yom is used in this context of God's wrath. Regardless about the use of yom here evening and morning are used at least four times to refer to a period of time. In fact the singular evening and morning are only combined 37 times outside of Genesis one. And only four times are they connected with the singular yom (Lev. 6:20; Num. 9:15; Duet. 16:4; Ps. 90:6).

Genesis one is almost completely unique in that evening and morning do not include a definite article nor are they combined by the words from and until. Ever wonder why Evening comes first? It is used to close off the previous creative period while morning refers to the dawning of the next period. These are two points in time. They are not combined as to define what a "day" means. The phrase is "and it was evening and it was morning," not "and the evening and the morning were" as the KJV says.

Gen. one is unique among all numbered lists, in the Old Testament, in that the number and Yom do not have definite articles.

The phrase "In the beginning" always refers to a period of time, not an instant. For example Jere. 28:1 defines both here and 27:1 as encompassing the fourth year of an eleven year reign. That is about 36% of the kings entire reign.

Gen. 2:2-3 says that God rested (ceased creating) on the seventh day. God will create again when He creates the New Heavens and the New Earth. In the mean time Hebrews chapter four says we can join God in His rest. In verses 3-4 we are shown that it is the seventh day rest and in verse 9 we are told that this rest we can join God in is Sabbatismos (a sabbath observance or sabbath keeping). Clearly the seventh day will not end until God creates again.

In John 5:17 Jesus refers to the Fathers non-creation working on His sabbath as Jesus was doing a non-laborous work, of healing, on the earthly sabbath.

Ex. 20:11 is just a yom for yom analogy which does not rely on the amount of time in each. In fact this passage does not even include what was created "In the beginning." It only deals with earth's preparation, not the universe.

Then there is Genesis 2 which is a more detailed look at the sixth day, but I'll stop for now.

Thanks dayage for the info... Welcome to the forum.

Hi Dayage

Yes, welcome to the forum.
I will not go into the negative evidence against evolution and theistic evolution except to say that one needs faith to believe in that as no one has yet proven it is 100% true. It still requires faith and the evidence attributed to it is not as good as people say. To go into this any more, as you would know, brings us way off cvourse from where we are now.
Back to Yom and the Bible. So the Bible requires study and revelation. What we do not understand or know we have faith it is true.
You typed in stats about thew word yom used etc. The only issue I have is that one can go to various places and find differing stats. So although I myself use stats in this instance it is not wholly reliable although your point is made.
The Bible is an integrated message system. You cannot go to a certain book and learn everything there is about prophecy or salvation. Every book contains it spread amonsgt the 66 books.
The way you compared Genesis to the the rest of the Bible does not fit inot the overal scheme of how Yom is used and how Genesis is portrade. I do admit it can mean an "interval" of time too elsewhere in the Bible but hsi depends on grammar and context. For example the 10 commandments see it as 7 days and the Sabbath compared to your exampls of Yom.

Chuck Missler, theologian and researcher says it better than I can.
"There are 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is "day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real problem isn't the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it with His own finger in stone!" (Yes, I know, I am using stats)

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11"

Now science and six days of creation.
I will agian use Chucks Missler.
"One of the many advantages that 20th century science has given us is that, thanks to Dr. Albert Einstein's brilliant discoveries, we now know that time is a physical property and is subject to mass, acceleration, and gravity. We have come to realize that we live in a four-dimensional continuum properly known as "space-time." (This is what Paul seems to imply in his letter to the Ephesians!8) It is interesting that when one takes the apparent 1012 expansion factor involved in the theories of the "expanding universe," that an assumed 16 billion years reduce to six days!"

"Not only have recent scientific articles highlighted the discoveries that the speed of light has changed over the centuries (something that Barry Setterfield has been declaring for decades) the very nature of light has ripped open the entire world of quantum physics that has shattered our concepts of reality itself." So thre Earth may not actualy be billions of years old then but I admit this is speculative.

You also mentioned evening and morning. I will use some info that is an alternative to yours. As I stated earlier one can find many alternatives."Evening" and "Morning"? The Hebrew terms, Erev,and Boker, now refer to "evening" and "morning" but their origins remain obscure. Erev designates obscuration, mixture (increasing entropy). The time when encroaching darkness begins to deny the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities; thus, it becomes a term for twilight or evening.20 This also marks the duration of impurity, when a ceremonially unclean person became clean again,21 and thus, the beginning of the Hebrew day. Boker is a designation for becoming discernible, distinguishable, visible; perception of order; relief of obscurity (decreasing entropy). It thus is associated with being able to begin to discern forms, shapes, and distinct identities; breaking forth of light; revealing; hence, denotatively, dawn, morning. (As traditional designations for the Hebrew day, technically it would seem to only designate the nighttime hours, but it is used connotatively for the entire calendar day.) It is noteworthy that neither of these are recorded on the seventh day, and thus their original significance may have been to designate the increments of creation.

ugo,

The Day-Age view has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. An old earth and universe still will not support it.

Yes about faith, as long as you are not meaning blind faith.

As far as stats go, you were trying take make a rule of usage. I was showing that it does not work. No one said that you could learn everything from one book. That is why I used other books. Yes context is key.

Exodus 20:11 uses an analogy. As you have already admitted, God is outside of time. God's "days" are not the same as ours: Job 10:5; Ps. 39:5, 90:4; II Peter 3:4. If you want to be concrete about it then God must get tired, Ex. 31:17. This is a repeat of the ten commandmets. Compare it to man in Ex. 23:12. Both are said to get refreshed (naphash).

The Ten commandments are also repeated in Duet. 5:12-15. Here it says the reason for observing the sabbath is their deliverance from Egypt.

Chuck Missler, theologian and researcher says it better than I can.
"There are 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is "day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day.

Sorry, but Chuck is wrong. Hosea 6:2, Zech. 14:7 (uses yom echad just like Gen. 1:5), the seventhday as shown in Hebrews 4, the sixth day described in Genesis 2. All of these are numbered days that describe lond periods of time.

We have come to realize that we live in a four-dimensional continuum properly known as "space-time." (This is what Paul seems to imply in his letter to the Ephesians!8)

I assume you mean Eph. 1:8 "which he lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight..." Sorry I missed the four dimensions.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of nothing as Chuck purposes. The space dimensions come into existance (along with time) and expand. As for your 1012 expansion you need to call and talk with the astronomers from Reasons to Believe. Every Tuesday for two hours they take calls. Go to the webcast page:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/

Or follow the Creation Update link from their home page:
http://www.reasons.org/

They are on every Tuesday from 1-3 PM central. These are old earth creationists.

The speed of light has not changed. You can ask the astronomers about that also. Answers in Genesis even comminted on a paper which spoke of the possible change in the speed of light:

In conclusion, the authors (who are also prepared to accept that their interpretation of the data may be wrong) still believe in billions of years, and would reject the relatively rapid change in c that Setterfield proposed since they are talking about <0.001% over 6—10 billion years.

Not much help for a young earth. Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, of RTB, refered to E=mc2. C2 is the velocity of light squared. If you increase it then E (energy, heat) would increase in the sun, cooking Adam or m would need to decrease, therefore the elements to build Adam would never form.

I do not really see anything that I dissagree with in the last paragraph.

It would be nice if you would respond to the seventhday arguments which I made.

Ugo,

Here is a link to Dr. Ross' answer to your exact question on light.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/multim ... ives.shtml

Scroll down to the 8-31-04 air date, click on the call-in question from Burt. I think you will need RealPlayer to listen.

Hi Dayage

Thanks for your links.
It is also refreshing to be able to debate and discuss these concepts with no emotional attachments or taking the opposite views as a personal attack. Thank you and keep it going.
You mentioned 7th day questions.I assume you mean ,"Gen. 2:2-3 says that God rested (ceased creating) on the seventh day. God will create again when He creates the New Heavens and the New Earth." You also said God will nor create agian till later, the new Earth etc.
HMM. Yes, I will have to study the scripture on this. It is a concept I have not thought about. Off the top I believe God syill creates but not on the physical level. He maintains the universe and creates through His answering of prayer. But I do agree maybe he does not create on the physical level till the New Earth and Heaven. But I cannot see a direct relationship between this and HIs resting on the seventh day unless you believe it is a period of time as you do. Its a little of the circular reasoning type maybe.
Am I on the mark with your thoughts?

ugo,
I agree with you about the debate and discussion.


I was refering to these arguments:

Gen. 2:2-3 says that God rested (ceased creating) on the seventh day. God will create again when He creates the New Heavens and the New Earth. In the mean time Hebrews chapter four says we can join God in His rest. In verses 3-4 we are shown that it is the seventh day rest and in verse 9 we are told that this rest we can join God in is Sabbatismos (a sabbath observance or sabbath keeping). Clearly the seventh day is on going and will not end until God creates again.

In John 5:17 Jesus refers to the Fathers, non-creation, working on His sabbath as Jesus was doing a non-laborous work, of healing, on the earthly sabbath.

dayage wrote:As far as humans evolving, I believe that God created them from scratch. The Bible states that God bara (brought into existence) man and asa (built) man. When He built Eve He bana (refabricated). So I would expect to see bana used for the different creative acts if evolution was true, but it is not used.

Hmm...

Well, what I think is that in biological terms (our physical body) we are still mammals and primates...but spiritually speaking - we are unique and on a level closer to God, and that sometime during course of transition from ancestral apes/hominids upwards - our kind became "possessed" (for lack of a better term) by the Holy Spirit resulting in first modern humans - Adam and Eve. They have since passed it on continued to this day/age.

Going by latest Scientific research - that makes the most sense to me.

Dear Anon

In light of your beliefs about creation what dop you make of these verses?

Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'” From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,”
Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50—51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation.

IN the web site, answeringgenesis, it has this to say.

"We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3—6; Mark 10:3—9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50—51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38—39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32—33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28—32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25—27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40— 41). As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes.2 Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise..."

Thanks for the reference..

But if human evolution is wrong and if we were created "from scratch",, then scientists shouldn't be finding all these genetic and morphological things that we share with with chimps and other great apes - such as the two primate chromosomes that have at some point fused into one in our lineage, the piece retroviral DNA shared with both humans and chimps in the same area of the genome,,, and and there should be a big gap of transitional hominids in the fossil record (which is not the case).... there's overwhelming evidence discovered that suggests we (physically/biologically) came from animals.. Why would God try to hide that from us?

It seems to me God's word on this is misinterpreted by us, not to be taken literally and difficult for us to come to conclusions. In either case we'll probably never know for certain until we ascend to heaven. Until then - I hold onto the belief that our creation is more of a spiritual thing than a physical one.

Hi Anon

Firstly you did not comment on my question about youtr beliefs compared to what Jesus said. I will give you the possibility that we have misinterpreted what is said in Genesis 1-11. But Jesus???


You said," But if human evolution is wrong and if we were created "from scratch",, then scientists shouldn't be finding all these genetic and morphological things that we share with with chimps and other great apes - such as the two primate chromosomes that have at some point fused into one in our lineage" This is a huge gap to make as the evidence is far from conclusive about apes and us. We even share about 90% of our DNA with mice.


"and and there should be a big gap of transitional hominids in the fossil record (which is not the case).... there's overwhelming evidence discovered that suggests we (physically/biologically) came from animals.. Why would God try to hide that from us?" I am confused by your comments about there being no large gap,as there is a huge gap in the fossil records. You must remember it is a theory still not proven not even close to 100%. You ask a good question? Why would God hide this from us? Maybe He did not as there was nothing to hide. We are created!! But as uyou know we can go down a slippery slide of debate in this area and get no where.

You are correct that we will know for sure when we get to heaven. But if you believe the Bible is God's word then there can be no contradictions. In the Bible it is obvious when God uses a simili, a metaphor, a paradox or a host of other parables or stories. Jesus would often say so. But apart from your beliefs in science which at times do not match the literal view of Genesis how do you know it is not to be taken literally?

If you do not take Genesis literally then where do you draw the line as to where you do? Or do you take all of Genesis as being not literal? If you do then the whole Bible becomes very unstable and contradictions abound. There would be no answer to evil as Genesis is not taken literally. The devil? Is this literal or only later in the Bible? If the fall is not literal then why did Jesus come to Earth? Genesis is full of puns and metaphors too that point to Jesus. This is literal but it seems some believe God made a non-literal genesis. For example God told Adam and Eve not to cover themesleve sbut that He would. What did Gid use? Animal skins. This is an allussaion to Jesus covering of us with His blood as we can say that God used an innocent animal to cover Adam and Eve. Jesus was innocent and used His blood too.
When you go deep into the Bible you begin to see that a non-literal view just does not make sense in view of the whole Bible.
My faith, which is not a blind faith, rests on this. I know what the Bible says, I have had experiential knowledge of God and what I do not know or understand I have faith it is true.

ugo wrote:You said," But if human evolution is wrong and if we were created "from scratch",, then scientists shouldn't be finding all these genetic and morphological things that we share with with chimps and other great apes - such as the two primate chromosomes that have at some point fused into one in our lineage" This is a huge gap to make as the evidence is far from conclusive about apes and us. We even share about 90% of our DNA with mice.

Ugo, this is not simply about how many sequences are similar, this is about patterns from virus insertions, chromosome insertions, and repeated stretched of DNA that is really intriguing and goes beyond just matches. WHile we may have 90% similarity with mice, there are some interesting matches between chimps and humans, such as the chromosome fusion, that is not so simple to brush away.

Plus, this wouldn't exclude a unique creation event with regards to the diffrences of humans and ancestor/chimp primate physically, psychologically, and most importantly, spiritually.

AS far as CHrist's testimony, absolutely it is trustworthy and meaninglful, however this really doesn't shed light as to the age question. Christ's word indicate that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning. Now whether you beleive in YOung earth or Old earth, they were created in the beginning, before God rested and completed HIs creative works.

I believe, like DAyage, that Adam and Eve were real factual people. I would have no problem with the idea that God used events such as chromosome fusion as part of the mechanism to create them from the "dust" of the earth.

HI zoegirl

I too would not find it too difficult to believ the same. I just think that the evidence is less conclusive then what anonimiss, dayage or others think. As for the DNA and chromosomes, it is interesting but is ahuge leap to say we have a common ancestor I believe. It is one thing to suggest a link but another to say with certainty it is true or almost true.
For example this comment,"there's overwhelming evidence discovered that suggests we (physically/biologically) came from animals.."
I do no think there isthis overwhleming evidence(notice the suggests wording too) and the fact that we seem to be "designed" similarly to animals can also be used to support a design hypothisis.
In this area the exact data can be often used by both sides of the debate. As Chuck Missler the theologion often says about data, that if you torture it enough it will admit to anything. I love that saying and it can be tortured by both sides too I might add.

To say they torture data to get this conclusion is rather overstating the case....very much so

They hardly have to torture the data to make conclusions like this! It is this very fact that makes these conclusions so....conclusive.

We share very distinct patterns of DNA, At this point one has to conclude

1) Either God designed separate species in distinct creative acts but with the appearance of having ancestral relationships.
2) God designed species using previous species to build upon and thus having related DNA, chromosomes, etc.

The second possibility is perfectly within God's parameters and choices and certainly doesn't go against scripture.

@ zeogirl:

2) God designed species using previous species to build upon and thus having related DNA, chromosomes, etc.

That's the possibility I'm inclined to agree with, and I've looked at it that way pretty much all along.