Evidence for God from Science

ndvasey wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:For me it is simply because prior to day 6 there was only vegetation, animals and God. Nothing that kept track of "time". It is only on day 6 when Adam was formed did "time begin". Simplistic, I know.

Don't worry about a simplistic explanation - sometimes those are the best. However, I'm not sure I understand your point - are you saying the 24hr periods did not start until day 6?

My call is this; The sun is not mentioned "created" (I would say our sun existed from the beginning, the big bang, but the earth was not put "into place or orbit" until day 4) until day 4 so AT LEAST up until that time there could not have been ANY 24hr days. From that point on I would say there were 24hr days here on earth. After the finish of every creation day, the narrative says, "there was evening and there was morning..." My personal take on this is that God's "arriving and leaving" the earth to create was the cause of these "evenings and mornings" spoken of for those special days of Creative acts. God planted the seeds and left to let his "garden" grow and when it was time, He returned to continue with the next creative step. Again, quick and simplistic.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:
My call is this; The sun is not mentioned "created" (I would say our sun existed from the beginning, the big bang, but the earth was not put "into place or orbit" until day 4) until day 4 so AT LEAST up until that time there could not have been ANY 24hr days. From that point on I would say there were 24hr days here on earth. After the finish of every creation day, the narrative says, "there was evening and there was morning..." My personal take on this is that God's "arriving and leaving" the earth to create was the cause of these "evenings and mornings" spoken of for those special days of Creative acts. God planted the seeds and left to let his "garden" grow and when it was time, He returned to continue with the next creative step. Again, quick and simplistic.
.
.

This sounds like a decent idea but I can't seem to reconcile it with the usage of days in Exo 20:8-11. To me it seems clear that our current week of 7x24hr days (168 total hrs) mentioned in vs. 8-10 is defined by the week of creation mentioned in vs. 11.

ndvasey wrote:This sounds like a decent idea but I can't seem to reconcile it with the usage of days in Exo 20:8-11. To me it seems clear that our current week of 7x24hr days (168 total hrs) mentioned in vs. 8-10 is defined by the week of creation mentioned in vs. 11.

I agree...it doesn't jive. However, the people of this time had no knowledge like we have today. Today we know, by science, that certain things take certain amounts of time and when related back to the estimated time since creation with the Bible, the times do not agree. Today there are YEC's and OEC's and everything in between. Whether God created the earth in 168 hours or 168 Billion years makes no real difference on our own salvation, but it is my opinion that God does not allow humanity knowledge just to say in the end, "Haha...I faked you out and you fell for it! I just snapped my fingers and everything fell into place *LOOKING AS IF* the earth had been around for millions of years." That, to me, would be a lie and we know God is not a liar. When we are given the truth about creation, I'm sure we will see that the wording is true and we will understand that in the end, the important thing is that God created.

What we are certain of is the holiness God put on a specific day numbered out. It is in remembering that GOD (Jesus) IS CREATOR where the importance sits...apparently. God's words, spoken and written by Him, speak for themselves, right?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: I agree...it doesn't jive. However, the people of this time had no knowledge like we have today. Today we know, by science, that certain things take certain amounts of time and when related back to the estimated time since creation with the Bible, the times do not agree. Today there are YEC's and OEC's and everything in between. Whether God created the earth in 168 hours or 168 Billion years makes no real difference on our own salvation, but it is my opinion that God does not allow humanity knowledge just to say in the end, "Haha...I faked you out and you fell for it! I just snapped my fingers and everything fell into place *LOOKING AS IF* the earth had been around for millions of years." That, to me, would be a lie and we know God is not a liar. When we are given the truth about creation, I'm sure we will see that the wording is true and we will understand that in the end, the important thing is that God created.

What we are certain of is the holiness God put on a specific day numbered out. It is in remembering that GOD (Jesus) IS CREATOR where the importance sits...apparently. God's words, spoken and written by Him, speak for themselves, right?
.
.

Let me see if I understand. Although it would appear that the days are 24hr periods, current interpretation of geological data suggesting the earth is 4.5billion years old disagrees with this model so there must be some other interpretation of Genesis. Furthermore, since this reinterpretation does not affect our belief in Jesus Christ and His atonement work on the cross, it is of little consequence whether or not the creation week is a figurative week or a literal week.



Does this sum it up?

ndvasey wrote:Let me see if I understand. Although it would appear that the days are 24hr periods, current interpretation of geological data suggesting the earth is 4.5billion years old disagrees with this model so there must be some other interpretation of Genesis. Furthermore, since this reinterpretation does not affect our belief in Jesus Christ and His atonement work on the cross, it is of little consequence whether or not the creation week is a figurative week or a literal week.

Does this sum it up?

In a broad general sense, yes. But I feel like you're trying to corner me into that 'yes'.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

ndvasey wrote:Let me see if I understand. Although it would appear that the days are 24hr periods, current interpretation of geological data suggesting the earth is 4.5billion years old disagrees with this model so there must be some other interpretation of Genesis. Furthermore, since this reinterpretation does not affect our belief in Jesus Christ and His atonement work on the cross, it is of little consequence whether or not the creation week is a figurative week or a literal week.

Does this sum it up?

In a broad general sense, yes. But I feel like you're trying to corner me into that 'yes'.
.
.

I don't mean to oversimplify or overstate your viewpoint. I think you share the same viewpoint with many people and I am trying to get a handle on what that viewpoint is - and for this reason I came to this forum. I would love to continue this discussion with you (or anyone else) with the desire for us to grasp, together with all the saints, the width and length, depth and height of the Love of Christ.

ndvasey wrote:

warhoop wrote: You reference Exodus 20:8-11, and I agree that this passage cannot be summarily dismissed and while I have some thoughts about it, I would like to hear what the other problems are that you were referencing.

I'm sure that in the course of discussing this portion of scripture, other problems will surface, but for ease of discussion, lets unravel this one first.

Agreed. And for the sake of simplicity, here is the passage quoted again using various translations.

Exodus 20:8-11 (New International Version)
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 20:8-11 (New American Standard Bible)
8"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 20:8-11 (King James Version)
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For 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 20:8-11 (English Standard Version)
8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 20:8-11 (New King James Version)
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I posted the various translations because I want to illustrate that they all contain a modification in verse 11 that, while making the verse seemingly more readable, has an impact on how one may understand the verse.

Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The highlighted word is not in the original Hebrew, but most English translations add that word, as I said before, for the sake of readability. The downside is that by adding that word, it imparts a different meaning to the verse that is not present in the original Hebrew. Remove that word and you have six total days of making, not six sequential days of making. Or another way of stating it would be that within a given timeframe, you have six seperate days that initiate an action, in this case "making."

I have 2 other comments about this passage, but I would like to hear some thoughts about this post first.

With reference to "in" not being in Hebrew, you are correct . . . the word le is not there. It is, rather, preceded by the conjunction ki ("for"), rendering the translation, "For six days God made the heavens and the earth." (Can you have double prepositions? I haven't gotten that far into my Hebrew yet . . . I'll look into that tomorrow). Anyway, our translation here could be durative. I've not taken very much time to look at the passage. If it is, we could paraphrase it, "For over the course of six days, God made the heavens and the earth . . ."

I do think this is interesting in light of the usual interpretation that Gen 1:1 describes the initial creation act, which is then followed by six days (however you use that word) of subsequent creation, but that's off topic.

What I did want to bring out, though, is that the LXX does explicitly supply the preposition en ("in"). The explicitness of it, in fact, is rather surprising, because Greek doesn't need it. The word "days" ("in six days") is in the dative case, which means you wouldn't need the preposition. It was put there on purpose.

Now . . . if the LXX translators felt the need to make it explicit, perhaps there's something more to it than just readability? Just a thought.

warhoop wrote: Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The highlighted word is not in the original Hebrew, but most English translations add that word, as I said before, for the sake of readability. The downside is that by adding that word, it imparts a different meaning to the verse that is not present in the original Hebrew. Remove that word and you have six total days of making, not six sequential days of making. Or another way of stating it would be that within a given timeframe, you have six seperate days that initiate an action, in this case "making."

I have 2 other comments about this passage, but I would like to hear some thoughts about this post first.

I guess I'm too dense to see the difference with or without the IN. Let me simplify it for myself. If I say the following statements:
"For IN six days I made a cake, but I rested on the seventh day"
or without the IN:
"For six days I made a cake, but I rested on the seventh day".

Are you saying that the 2nd statement implies large amounts of time in between each of the six days while the first does not? To me, they are equivalent statements, conveying the exact same information. I either made the cake in six days (statement 1) or I worked for six days to make the cake (statement 2). Including the day of rest on the end they both are a week long. I just don't see where I can add any time in between the six days with either statement.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly?

As an aside, both cakes were delicious.

ndvasey wrote:As an aside, both cakes were delicious.

I like cake ...

I guess I'm too dense to see the difference with or without the IN. Let me simplify it for myself. If I say the following statements:
"For IN six days I made a cake, but I rested on the seventh day"
or without the IN:
"For six days I made a cake, but I rested on the seventh day".

Are you saying that the 2nd statement implies large amounts of time in between each of the six days while the first does not? To me, they are equivalent statements, conveying the exact same information. I either made the cake in six days (statement 1) or I worked for six days to make the cake (statement 2). Including the day of rest on the end they both are a week long. I just don't see where I can add any time in between the six days with either statement.

Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. With the preposition IN as part of the text, the six days become entrapped as consecutive. Remove that preposition and remove the restriction. The six days that you were working on that cake now become any ol' days and as such, it could take you a year from start to finish to make the cake. (That better be one mighty fine cake!)

My point is that by removing IN from that verse, as it does not exist in the Hebrew, the verse then does not say anything about the age of the universe and because it does not say anything about the age of the universe, it cannot and should not be used as a prooftext for YEC or OEC.

warhoop wrote: Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. With the preposition IN as part of the text, the six days become entrapped as consecutive. Remove that preposition and remove the restriction. The six days that you were working on that cake now become any ol' days and as such, it could take you a year from start to finish to make the cake. (That better be one mighty fine cake!)

My point is that by removing IN from that verse, as it does not exist in the Hebrew, the verse then does not say anything about the age of the universe and because it does not say anything about the age of the universe, it cannot and should not be used as a prooftext for YEC or OEC.

I have to apologize here, I still am unable to arrive at your conclusion. I can read what your point is - that from Exodus 20:11 it is an indeterminate amount of time. But you lost me in HOW it is possible to not come away with the understanding that this verse describes one contiguous week of time.

To try to understand your conclusion, I turn to scripture. I found the following verses that use similar construction and verbage of Exodus 20:11 but they do not contain the clarifying word "IN".

Gen 7:17: "For forty days the flood kept coming..."
Exodus 12:19 "For seven days no yeast is to be found..."
Exodus 13:6 "For seven days eat bread made without yeast..."
Exodus 15:22 "For three days they traveled..."
Exodus 20:9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work."
Exodus 23:12 "Six days do your work..."
Exodus 24:16 "...For six days the cloud covered the mountain..."
Exodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done..."
Deuteronomy 5:13 "Six days you shall labor..."
Deuteronomy 16:8 "For six days eat unleavened bread..."
1 Samuel 17:16 "For forty days the Philistine..."
1 Kinds 20:29 "For seven days they camped..."
Ezra 6:22 "For seven days they celebrated..."

And on and on. In each case, the same wording found in Exodus 20:11 is used either as future tense (as a command) or past tense (similar to the verse in question). I apply the following logic to each verse: If it is true that Exodus 20:11 describes an unknowable span of time, then it follows that in each verse above the total amount of elapsed time is also unknowable.

To test this hypothesis, I imagine that between each day there is actually one year of time. In other words, rather than describing the total time elapsed, the verses merely punctuate days on which something happened or is to happen but there could be vast amounts of time in between (I chose 1 year of time). In performing this exercise I find that in each case the verse loses its meaning or the message is completely reversed from the intent.

For instance, "For forty days the flood kept coming..." I imagine a flood coming a particular day. The next physical day (one rotation of the earth about its axis) and for the next 364 physical days, the flood either came or it didn't (unknowable what it did or did not do as only 40 puntuated days are described). Then, the next puncutated day, the flood came followed by 365 days of random activity.

If the flood continued in between each puncutated day, stating the flood came for 40 days rather than 14,600 days (40x365), is rather deceptive and dilutes (pun intended) the message of utter destruction in the passage. Or, if the flood did not come in between each day (either receeded or was calm), it becomes a completely unremarkable event because for 40 years, every puntuated day, the flood came, but in between, there could be days of swimming, splashing, fishing (if it would have been my family anyway). In neither case is the context preserved or enhanced but rather the opposite is true, it is confused, diluted or completely reversed. To me, this exercise renders these verses confusing and sometimes even contradictory to the context. Therefore, in my estimation, based on this test using scripture, the hypothesis that the time span is unknowable without the usage of "IN" is incorrect.

Perhaps I have built a straw-man argument so I hope you would correct me and provide a better one. However, I still am frustrated in my attempts to understand your conclusion. For that I apologize but perhaps if you showed me some verses that illustrate your point I could meditate on them and see more clearly?

ndvasey wrote:Gen 7:17: "For forty days the flood kept coming..."

The Flood...not "floods" So there it is clear it is one event and thus consecutive.

ndvasey wrote:Exodus 12:19 "For seven days no yeast is to be found..."

Verse 18 clearly makes the 7 days consecutive, "from day 14-21" of one month (30 days)

ndvasey wrote:Exodus 13:6 "For seven days eat bread made without yeast..."
Exodus 15:22 "For three days they traveled..."
Exodus 20:9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work."
Exodus 23:12 "Six days do your work..."
Exodus 24:16 "...For six days the cloud covered the mountain..."
Exodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done..."
Deuteronomy 5:13 "Six days you shall labor..."
Deuteronomy 16:8 "For six days eat unleavened bread..."
1 Samuel 17:16 "For forty days the Philistine..."
1 Kinds 20:29 "For seven days they camped..."
Ezra 6:22 "For seven days they celebrated..."

Most of these are the same way. Humans understand days, months, years as specific amounts of time so when God talks to humans about what work THEY should do, it is clear that the times are in human time.

2 Peter 3:8 NIV wrote:With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So when God impresses Moses to write about creation, it is in God's time that it happened, but explained in terms that man would understand when man did not exist.

Did it take God 24hrs to utter the few words given us in Genesis for each day? When He said, "Let there be light", did it take the light 12 hours to switch on? Then God separated light from dark...did that take another 12 hours to complete?

If one is going to argue the point that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24hr periods of time, one must conclude that either God's creative abilities are less than instantaneous, or He may have a studdering problem. Which would you say?

Even though today we understand more about the science of earth, the creation week still makes sense to a reasoning mind.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:
If one is going to argue the point that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24hr periods of time, one must conclude that either God's creative abilities are less than instantaneous, or He may have a studdering problem. Which would you say?

.

I cut out most of your response to reduce the confusion (I'm easily confused) and to focus on your main point (I think).

These are not the only two conclusions I can draw from the fact that God created everything in six consecutive, contiguous earth rotations. Similarly I can draw more conclusions from the fact that God rested on the seventh day than He is easily worn out and tired out.

To clarify my point: I do NOT believe God's creative abilities are limited because He used six consecutive days just as I do NOT believe that God tires or gets worn out even though He rested on the seventh day.

I conclude that God created the concept of a week. Six days of work followed by one day of rest. God exists outside the limitations of time so He obviously did not do it for His benefit. He must have done it for our benefit - to describe to us the intervals in which we must work as well as replenish ourselves. And because God is so loving, He didn't just tell us to do it, He showed us how to do it.

The bottom line is this: Do you believe Exodus 20:8-11 is describing a week of seven continuous contiguous days or do you believe it is describing some vast unknowable amount of time? That has been the underlying question in my posts.

ndvasey wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:
If one is going to argue the point that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24hr periods of time, one must conclude that either God's creative abilities are less than instantaneous, or He may have a studdering problem. Which would you say?

.

I cut out most of your response to reduce the confusion (I'm easily confused) and to focus on your main point (I think).

These are not the only two conclusions I can draw from the fact that God created everything in six consecutive, contiguous earth rotations. Similarly I can draw more conclusions from the fact that God rested on the seventh day than He is easily worn out and tired out.

If left with simply the creation account, then one might conclude this, however the people didn't take it as such and down the timeline, Christ clarifies that the Sabbath was made for man... so to think God gets worn or tired would be silly especially at this point in time.

ndvasey wrote:To clarify my point: I do NOT believe God's creative abilities are limited because He used six consecutive days just as I do NOT believe that God tires or gets worn out even though He rested on the seventh day.

So when concluding that God took one day to create light and separate light from dark what was He doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds of creation day one? (I'm hearing the tune of Final Jeapordy playing in my mind now).

ndvasey wrote:I conclude that God created the concept of a week. Six days of work followed by one day of rest. God exists outside the limitations of time so He obviously did not do it for His benefit. He must have done it for our benefit - to describe to us the intervals in which we must work as well as replenish ourselves. And because God is so loving, He didn't just tell us to do it, He showed us how to do it.

Agreed! But you bite yourself by your simple understanding that God created a CONCEPT that only in *time* is a reality. There is no day or night for God. Day and night ONLY exist on earth (and other planets with a revolving star and not all are our same 24hrs of time). If I'm correct, and there is no day or night in God's existence, then what else is there but an evening and a morning when God's presence is focused in one specific place for a "time"?

ndvasey wrote:The bottom line is this: Do you believe Exodus 20:8-11 is describing a week of seven continuous contiguous days or do you believe it is describing some vast unknowable amount of time? That has been the underlying question in my posts.

Of course I believe creation week was a "week" ( a concept made by God ) of seven continuous contiguous days. God's first "day" visit to earth certainly touches God's second "day" visit just like I can go on vacation to Hawaii for 7 days and visit the beach on 2 of those 7 days where day 1 of the beach visit and day 2 of the beach visit aren't necessarily consecutive days in the 7, yet they are day 1 and day 2 at the beach. Beach visit day 1 could be day 2 of the 7 day vacation and Beach visit day 2 could be day 7 of the 7 day vacation thus my narrative of Beach visits could be something like this:

While on vacation in Hawaii for a week, we visited the beach. On day 1 at the beach we decided to have a relaxing time and just enjoy the sun and frolic in the shallow waters on Waikiki. Day 2 at the beach we wanted more excitement before boarding the late flight home later that day and so hit the darker, deeper waters at the North Shore early that morning.

If I were asked to write an essay of my time at the beach, one might think both days were consecutive contiguous...and they ARE...yet they aren't. They were two consecutive contiguous days AT THE BEACH...with no mention of the days total in Hawaii which are not part of the essay. If the essay is about the beach days, there is no reason to mention the day at Pali Lookout, shopping, hiking Diamond Head, the Japanese gardens or the Polynesian Cultural Center.
.
.

Let me rephrase the question:

Are the seven days described in Gen 1 as well as Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 the same as our Sunday through Saturday we have today?