Evidence for God from Science

Mastermind wrote:Damn, in all the time we've been here, we've never seen those verses before. You took me completely by surprise.

Read through this discussion on the old board:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... c&start=40

Okay, I have and here are my comments:

After quoting Hebrews 4:1-11, Kurieuo wrote:

This means God's seventh day of rest has lasted at least 6000+ years long! And if this is true as we have seen, then my claims remain significantly valid that you are reading too much into Exodus 20:8-12.

Yes, God's rest may be continuing since the 7th day; in fact, God's rest is the eternal rest for which we look forward to. However, nowhere does it say that the 7th day itself is going on and on and on and on.

A few posts later, the discussion was about the past tense used in saying that God rested on the 7th day. To which Kurieuo concluded:

So the past tense is in reference to when God first began resting from His creative works. This is the only way I can see to reconcile the two passages. God began resting in the past and still rests from His creation today.

Right. The past tense is used to indicate when God began resting: on the 7th day. He has been restings since, but it does not follow from that that the 7th day has continued since. The 7th day is a reference in time to indicate when God's rest began.

Several posts later, after getting sidetracked into dinosaurs and whatnot, Kurieuo then returned to talking about Hebrews 4. He wrote/quoted:

"For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest [God's rest on the seventh day], lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience." (cf. Hebrews 4:4-11).

In Hebrews 4:6,8, and 11 we can see that the writer is talking about the Promised Land as the place of rest to which the Israelistes were not permitted to enter. Just as the place of rest that we should be diligent to enter (Heb 4:11) is heaven.

I don't see how any of this text in Hebrews 4 can be used to support a length of time.


Consider:
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

That's quite a statement for anyone to make if there indeed were billions of years encased in those 6 days of creation. How could any man state such a thing about billions of years of unrecorded history? And Peter did not refute that statement, but spoke instead of God's patience, wanting all to come to repentence.

I think an old earth creation belief diminishes God's glory. God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. That's what God wants us to believe. I believe it.

Once4all

yes, but you're missing one thing: The 7th day was never closed. All the other days ended with "evening and morning". The seventh didn't. Why?

Since the seventh day is the only "Rest of God", it is only logical to assume that it is referring to God's rest on the seventh day.

Consider:
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

That's quite a statement for anyone to make if there indeed were billions of years encased in those 6 days of creation. How could any man state such a thing about billions of years of unrecorded history? And Peter did not refute that statement, but spoke instead of God's patience, wanting all to come to repentence.

I don't see the connection. Unless you are implying that people were around from the beginning, in which case all I have to say is that they weren't in either creation account.

I think an old earth creation belief diminishes God's glory. God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. That's what God wants us to believe. I believe it.

No, you think God said that. please stop telling us what you think God wants us to believe and refrain from making absolute statements until the discussion is over. thank you.

One more thing. When translating Genesis from hebrew, you do NOT have to use the 7 day CONSECUTIVE sequence. All those verses could simply say "And there was evening and there was morning, A THIRD DAY" for example. The days could be used to mark the end of one era and the beginning of another. Since hebrew vocabulary was pretty small compared to ours and most of the meaning was derived from context(and there is nothing in the context to tell us how long the creation took), this translation is as legit as any other.

Mastermind wrote:yes, but you're missing one thing: The 7th day was never closed. All the other days ended with "evening and morning". The seventh didn't. Why?

No, I'm not missing that; I'm just not giving it the great deal of significance that you are. It's really quite simple, unless of course one needs to read more into it in order to justify something that isn't there. The act of creation took place in six days and God wanted us to know on which day He did what, so he had to demarcate when one day of creation ended and the next began. At the end of the sixth day, creation was done. On the seventh day He rested. Since the chronological recording of that event was done, and there was no reason to usher in an eighth day to describe more activity, the seventh day did not have to be "closed."

Mastermind wrote:Since the seventh day is the only "Rest of God", it is only logical to assume that it is referring to God's rest on the seventh day.

I don't know what your comment above is pointing back to in our discussion, but I'll wing it. God's rest is a rest "from all His work which God had created and made." [Bible](Gen 2:3)[/Bible]

Observe:

Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."

Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

As long as we're alive on this earth, we do not rest from the Lord's work.

Mastermind wrote:

Once4all wrote:Consider:
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

That's quite a statement for anyone to make if there indeed were billions of years encased in those 6 days of creation. How could any man state such a thing about billions of years of unrecorded history? And Peter did not refute that statement, but spoke instead of God's patience, wanting all to come to repentence.

I don't see the connection. Unless you are implying that people were around from the beginning, in which case all I have to say is that they weren't in either creation account.

That's true, man wasn't created until the sixth day. But that only leaves five days unwitnessed by man, not billions of years. And those five days are recorded for us in Genesis 1.

Mastermind wrote:

Once4all wrote:I think an old earth creation belief diminishes God's glory. God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. That's what God wants us to believe. I believe it.

No, you think God said that. please stop telling us what you think God wants us to believe and refrain from making absolute statements until the discussion is over. thank you.

Aren't YOU telling us what YOU think God wants us to believe when you expound an old earth interpretation? And, no, I don't think God said that He created in six days. Scripture says that, those are the literal words recorded. Our disagreement is in whether "the second day," "the third day," etc. literally means days or if they are some kind of euphemism or figure of speech really meaning billions of years.

"...until the discussion is over." LOL. Like this discussion will ever be over...
Some discussions never die, they just fade away until the next time.

Once4all

Once4all wrote:Yes, God's rest may be continuing since the 7th day; in fact, God's rest is the eternal rest for which we look forward to. However, nowhere does it say that the 7th day itself is going on and on and on and on.

It is true that we enter God's rest through Christ, and this passage appears to touch upon such a doctrine. Yet, God's rest being referred to in Hebrews is clearly analogous to God's rest on the seventh day of creation: '"And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."' It would make no sense to refer to God's seventh day of rest if it had ended. Therefore drawing the conclusion that the seventh day is open seems pretty clear to me, and it also seems it was evident to the early Church father Origen who wrote in the third century of the seventh (Sabbath) day lasting the full duration of the world:

He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings."

Once4all wrote:A few posts later, the discussion was about the past tense used in saying that God rested on the 7th day. To which Kurieuo concluded:

So the past tense is in reference to when God first began resting from His creative works. This is the only way I can see to reconcile the two passages. God began resting in the past and still rests from His creation today.

Right. The past tense is used to indicate when God began resting: on the 7th day. He has been restings since, but it does not follow from that that the 7th day has continued since. The 7th day is a reference in time to indicate when God's rest began.

You are correct that it does not necessarily follow at least from Psalm 95:7-11 that the seventh day has not ended despite God's rest continuing. Yet as previously mentioned we are lead to believe in Hebrews that we are to enter God's seventh day of rest. And as pointed out by Mastermind, it is significant that the seventh day is never closed in Genesis. It certainly seems an obvious conclusion to draw from Scripture that God's seventh day was never closed.

Once4all wrote:In Hebrews 4:6,8, and 11 we can see that the writer is talking about the Promised Land as the place of rest to which the Israelistes were not permitted to enter. Just as the place of rest that we should be diligent to enter (Heb 4:11) is heaven.

You are correct to associate the rest with an eternal rest found in Christ. As is spoken of in Colossians 13-14, 16-17, the Sabbath finds its reality in Christ who gives all everlasting rest! Yet such meaning does not render God's seventh day of rest entirely irrelevant in the Hebrews passage. It would be hard to understand why the reference to God's seventh day of rest us in Hebrews 4 if it had ended.

Once4all wrote:Consider:
2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

Do you not realise that the meaning you attach to this passage is a double-edged sword and would also argue against the YEC view? The first thing I'd like to point out is that this verse does not say mankind was at the very beginning of creation. As Adam and Eve were not created until day six, such would also argue against a young-earth view.

I'd also like to refer to Matthew Henry's commentary to help with an overview of this passage:

... here, say they, “The fathers have fallen asleep, those are all dead to whom the promise was made, and it was never made good in their time, and there is no likelihood that it ever will be in any time; why should we trouble ourselves about it? If there had been any truth or certainty in the promise you speak of, we should surely have seen somewhat of it before this time, some signs of his coming, some preparatory steps in order to it; whereas we find to this very day all things continue as they were, without any change, even from the beginning of the creation. Since the world has undergone no changes in the course of so many thousand years, why should we affright ourselves as if it were to have an end?” Thus do these scoffers argue. Because they see no changes, therefore they fear not God, Psa_55:19. They neither fear him nor his judgments; what he never has done they would conclude he never can do or never will.

Now since mankind was created on day six and the fathers had fallen asleep (who do you think these fathers are?), none of these in their lifetime witnessed God's return. Everything appears to continue day after day like every other day since the beginning of creation. Many have died to whom Christ's return had been promised, and God doesn't seem to be letting us know what is going on, and so many scoff at such a promise. However, eventually the day will come just like in Noah's time, and when that day comes judgement will occur...

This passage has absolutely no impact upon the length of days.

Once4all wrote:I think an old earth creation belief diminishes God's glory.

That's fine, as I think a young earth interpretation diminishes God's glory and goes against Scripture which says:

• Psalm 19—
  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
  the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
  night after night they display knowledge.
  3 There is no speech or language
  where their voice is not heard.
  4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
  their words to the ends of the world.

Once4all wrote:God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. That's what God wants us to believe. I believe it.

And I believe this too, however the issue is about what those days consist of.

Kurieuo.

No, I'm not missing that; I'm just not giving it the great deal of significance that you are. It's really quite simple, unless of course one needs to read more into it in order to justify something that isn't there. The act of creation took place in six days and God wanted us to know on which day He did what, so he had to demarcate when one day of creation ended and the next began. At the end of the sixth day, creation was done. On the seventh day He rested. Since the chronological recording of that event was done, and there was no reason to usher in an eighth day to describe more activity, the seventh day did not have to be "closed."

Your explanation however is inconsistent with what actually happened. All other six were closed. The last one hasn't. I agree that it does not automatically mean they are 24 hour periods, but it certainly doesn't point in that direction.

I don't know what your comment above is pointing back to in our discussion, but I'll wing it. God's rest is a rest "from all His work which God had created and made." (Gen 2:3)

Observe:

Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."

Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

As long as we're alive on this earth, we do not rest from the Lord's work.

I fail to see what this has to do with my reply. It is referring to "His rest". There is only one rest recorded. The LITERAL interpretation would be to assume that it is talking about the only one of God's rests that is recorded in the bible. A non-literal interpretation would mean for you to do what you just did, and contrast two different rests.

That's true, man wasn't created until the sixth day. But that only leaves five days unwitnessed by man, not billions of years.

Again, what does it matter? In both cases man is part of creation. In both cases, if we were to take the meaning of "beginning of creation" like you do, man would be near the end of creation. 14 billion years or 7 days, it doesn't make a difference.

And those five days are recorded for us in Genesis 1.

No, that's what you think. The truth is that genesis can be literally read either way and still be correct.

Aren't YOU telling us what YOU think God wants us to believe when you expound an old earth interpretation?

No, I'm stating it as a possibility, not absolute fact like you are.

And, no, I don't think God said that He created in six days. Scripture says that, those are the literal words recorded. Our disagreement is in whether "the second day," "the third day," etc. literally means days or if they are some kind of euphemism or figure of speech really meaning billions of years.

What "literal words recorded"? The fact remains that:

a) Yom does not automatically mean a 24 hour period
b) Genesis does not automatically show 7 consecutive days, assuming yom does mean a 24 hour period.

Your interpretation may be literal, but so is mine. Just because it is different from yours does not make mine "figurative". I don't need "figures of speech" to show that my interpretation is viable.

"...until the discussion is over." LOL. Like this discussion will ever be over... Rolling Eyes
Some discussions never die, they just fade away until the next time.

No, I'm extremely hard headed. The only way this discussion is going to die is if you let it die. I'll be here fighting the good fight to the end.

To address both you and K, it doesn't seem to me that the seventh day being open or closed has any bearing on the length of the previous six days, so maybe this part of the discussion is futile, at least as far as the topic of YE/OE is concerned.

Once4all wrote:Aren't YOU telling us what YOU think God wants us to believe when you expound an old earth interpretation?

Mastermind wrote:No, I'm stating it as a possibility, not absolute fact like you are.

Once4all wrote:"...until the discussion is over." LOL. Like this discussion will ever be over... Rolling Eyes
Some discussions never die, they just fade away until the next time.

Mastermind wrote:No, I'm extremely hard headed. The only way this discussion is going to die is if you let it die. I'll be here fighting the good fight to the end.

So you are fighting to the bitter end for a "possibility"? I'd much rather fight for the Truth.

And by the way, I said that some discussions "never die" (referring to this one and others like it), so you are actually agreeing with me, despite your "No."

But it can fade out for now since the weekend is almost over and I don't get a lot of time during the week to reply to long and growing posts.

Once4all

Mastermind wrote:Damn, in all the time we've been here, we've never seen those verses before. You took me completely by surprise.

Read through this discussion on the old board:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... c&start=40

I've used some of those verses, actually...you just ignored me.

I've read through a lot of these threads and a lot of OE and YE sites that had their arguments for why they believe their view. Certainly many educated (for what that's worth, right ) folks on both side of the fence.

Looks like to me YE is certainly biblical and OE is pulling and stretching the word of God so that it says something that the athiest scientists can agree with. But I'm sure all of you OE'ers see things skewed in a different direction.

The best thing I pulled out of any of those websites was something like "It's not the ages of rock that count, but the Rock of ages".

Looks like to me YE is certainly biblical and OE is pulling and stretching the word of God so that it says something that the athiest scientists can agree with. But I'm sure all of you OE'ers see things skewed in a different direction.

YEC is a relatively modern day invention with a following of people who are either bitter towards atheists(and for some stupid reason take it out on science) or were taught that way. The ancients certainly did not even try to measure the age of the earth and the church fathers did not beleive in the young earth you propose either. You use incomplete genealogies to conjure up 6 thousand years out of thin air by manipulating the data. You insist that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is the only possible out despite being unable to prove that Yom HAD to mean a 24 hour period and that Genesis doesn't even say the seven days are consecutive, nor does it say God made a certain thing on a certain single day. If anybody is stretching the word of God, it is you with your assumptions. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if you didn't insist that your assumptions are the only biblical and correct ones.

MM,

Touche, but you do believe the OE views are correct, right? So, am I hearing that you at least allow that YE could be right?

CB

Yes, I do. I don't really think the Bible swings much in any direction. I think God made it that way because different interpretations are required to strengthen the faith of different kinds of Christians.

But we know that only one view is true. I think YE is true, that's all. And I guess a part of that is because I believe it's backed up more through scripture. I don't do Hebrew, Greek, Latin or even good English for that matter so I'm just going by

1.) what I think the bible teaches (from my limited capacity)
2.) what I've read of other's research (however scant that may be)

Anybody who thinks about it hard enough has to make some sorta inner choice.

I have no bitterness against athiest, but in something like this when it could go either way, I'd much rather just choose the side that they are not on. I especially like that the YE choice doesn't allow for evolution...which cuts the legs out from under atheism.

Not that I don't think God could have created a single cell and allow billions of years for it to do it's thing...of course He could. I just don't think that's the way it happened.

Yes, we know only one view is true, but I don't think it really matters which one is true, and we won't even know which one is true until we're dead.

Atheists certainly do attack OEC, especially Day-Agers. We aren't on their side and they aren't on ours.

I think the main thing to remember is that despite our disagreement on creation, both sides uphold Scripture as authoritative. Our disagreement isn't over Scripture being wrong, but rather interpretations. And let's say we're both wrong somehow , at least we got the main thing which is that everything was created by God, and we once had a close relationship with Him until our sin separated us.

Kurieuo.