Evidence for God from Science

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;

What does that have to do with Adam's comprehension of time? God could have told Abraham that he would have 500,400,900,754,473,921 descendents, but that would have just left Abraham with a puzzled look on his face. Instead God said that his descendents would be like the grains of sand on the beach. God always uses terms we can understand.

I'm no expert, and haven't looked it up.

Hence your problem.

Hey! I have studied the word Yom as well. And it is used quite similarly as 'day' is in the english language. I interpret 'Yom" in Gen 2:4 in the context of past tense as "In that day" ie "back then" "In those day's" you know what I mean right? Edit: (both 'day' and 'day(s)' are yom. as in Gen 1:4)

If it means "in those days", than that includes the many days that take place during the billions of years.

Trust me, blindly following an ideology gets you no where. You have to look at the facts in science and more importantly look at the communication of the text in the Bible.

If God is the God of the universe, would it be lying for Him to say that 2 billion years is a day for Him because He exists above time? On the outer planets like Uranus and Neptune the days can be as long as 27 years.

Also, "Yom" means many things. One of those means from sunset to sunrise. Did it ever occur to you that the rotation of the earth may not have been consistant?

1. You presuppose God 'needed the sun and moon' to tell us how long it took Him to accomplish His goals? Heh! my dear friend, God created time.

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

God did create Time. Further, God is outside of the constraints of time. If Day 1, 2, and 3 were absent any celestial bodies how then do you assert that they are literal 24 hour days? Evening and morning in this context might mean any length of time which are roughly equal in light and darkness. Does the text itself assert a length of time? We might assume 24 hours but then we're on the other side of that 4th day so our perspective isn't necessarily relevant.

Do you believe there is something related to an earth perspective going on here where the bodies were present but because they weren't visible from the earth day 4 is more their unveiling than there creation?

Do you believe that the text itself has some nuances or context related to Hebrew language that needs to be understood to explain this that is lost in the translation or cultural differences?

This is a tough question, but it isn't a trick. These are questions that demand an answer from the party asserting something as fact. How do you explain this, and are you consistent in the use of that principle throughout the entire passage?

I don't presuppose God needed anything. I simply ask you to provide the textual basis upon which you assert 24 hour days. Stating God needed nothing is true but doesn't answer the question.

The context that you purposefully framed question 1 in is indeed a trap. A question to you might be How did God tell the time before He created switzerland.

Quite honestly, no one knows but God.

What's the relevance of your analogy? You're the one asserting a 24 hour day. You're claiming to know. What is the basis of your knowledge? If the text and the text alone, then you need to be able to demonstrate the basis of your assertion from the text and the text alone.

#3 Another issue of not looking into the original context of scripture. Here is a good study on the apparent contradictions between Gen1 and 2

"Context?" As the one making the assertion of 24 hour days the onus is on the Young Earth Creationist to proactively demonstrate the context of the passage and how it supports their assertion. Further, when a particular approach is adopted it then should be assumed that that approach can be used consistently throughout the entire passage.

What disturbs me, is not that you assert belief in the Bible. I believe in the Bible. What confuses me is how you equate a Young Earth view as equal to "The Bible."

Theology is relevant. Theology is man's understanding of God and the Bible. As such it is only as true as what it captures of the the Scripture. When you assert a position that is not clearly asserted in the Bible itself, then the onus is on you to provide an explanation of how you arrive at a particular conclusion.

Asserting faith, asserting reason (without explaining it) and asserting that the text itself asserts something when you have to interpret that text to come to that conclusion is not apologetics and frankly it fails the test of giving a reason for the hope you have within, which itself is a Scriptural directive.

I can go to YEC websites and read references and cut and paste's and in fact I have many times. I used to be a Young Earther until I began to take these things to heart and try to explain them to others who asked me the same questions. Many of them were unbelievers and implicit in their question was "How can you ask me to accept on faith your belief in a young earth when everything we know on a rationale level points to great age? Is your God a deceiver?"

I don't believe God is a deceiver in Scripture or in His creation. I don't accept that a Young Earth Position equates to the Scripture itself unless you can show how you get from point A to point B and then can show that you're interpretation is reasonable and then also consistent.

That's where I'm coming from.

Bart[/quote]

Canuckster1127 wrote:God did create Time. Further, God is outside of the constraints of time. If Day 1, 2, and 3 were absent any celestial bodies how then do you assert that they are literal 24 hour days? Evening and morning in this context might mean any length of time which are roughly equal in light and darkness.

Hi Bart! thanks for you reply. As you say yom 'might mean' or 'could mean' any length of time. This, in and of itself 'means' nothing outside of the context in which it was framed.

Does the text itself assert a length of time? We might assume 24 hours but then we're on the other side of that 4th day so our perspective isn't necessarily relevant.

Yes, it has always been seen as a 24hr day by mainstream christians throuout history. Until recently when evilutuion poked it's head in the door opened by old age theory. I find Gods Word has always been markedly accurate, even before any revelation I get, when I do get it I am blown away.

Do you believe there is something related to an earth perspective going on here where the bodies were present but because they weren't visible from the earth day 4 is more their unveiling than there creation?

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Here we see God create the light. (makes the clay)

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Here He is describing thier function

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here we see Him making them (molding thier form)

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And finally we see Him putting them in place.

Do you believe that the text itself has some nuances or context related to Hebrew language that needs to be understood to explain this that is lost in the translation or cultural differences?

No, it is God who controls the content of what He say's to His people. He means what He say's. If you think it's possibe that God would allow such an obvious 'misunderstanding since the early days of the church your mistaken. If revelation of Scripture comes, it will be by the Spirit, not science.

I don't presuppose God needed anything. I simply ask you to provide the textual basis upon which you assert 24 hour days. Stating God needed nothing is true but doesn't answer the question.

I have already answered this multiple times above and before. Just what is written in Genesis lends itself to the meaning of 24hrs. I think that since it has been so widely believed that it was written to convey a literal 24hr period of time the onus to prove that it say's otherwise is on you. Iv'e already made my case, but in case you missed something I will resubmit a link to one reference and do go back and read what biblical scolars like James Barr have said on the issue. See this word study with cardinal numbers.

What's the relevance of your analogy?

Sarcasm, I enjoy it.

You're the one asserting a 24 hour day. You're claiming to know. What is the basis of your knowledge? If the text and the text alone, then you need to be able to demonstrate the basis of your assertion from the text and the text alone.

Already done.

What disturbs me, is not that you assert belief in the Bible. I believe in the Bible. What confuses me is how you equate a Young Earth view as equal to "The Bible."

What disturbs me is the fact someone can take apparent revelation in science and cut and paste scriptures to try make it mean something it never was originaly intended to say. That my freind is nothing short of heresy. Old agers have created a new religion by skewing the Word of God. Remind you of any other cults out there?

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mar 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Theology is relevant. Theology is man's understanding of God and the Bible. As such it is only as true as what it captures of the the Scripture. When you assert a position that is not clearly asserted in the Bible itself, then the onus is on you to provide an explanation of how you arrive at a particular conclusion.

Back at ya.

Asserting faith, asserting reason (without explaining it) and asserting that the text itself asserts something when you have to interpret that text to come to that conclusion is not apologetics and frankly it fails the test of giving a reason for the hope you have within, which itself is a Scriptural directive.

Your role reversing my friend, this is a new theory in light of Genesis, the onus is on the proponents of this new theory that claims something that goes against what has been the mainstream thinking of yom for centuries.

I can go to YEC websites and read references and cut and paste's and in fact I have many times. I used to be a Young Earther until I began to take these things to heart and try to explain them to others who asked me the same questions. Many of them were unbelievers and implicit in their question was "How can you ask me to accept on faith your belief in a young earth when everything we know on a rationale level points to great age? Is your God a deceiver?"

Ok then, what do you make of the doctrinal issues these kinds of things create? "everything we know uh? You don't get out much? Go dig around answers in Genesis, and you will find plenty of things that actually point to a young earth.

I don't believe God is a deceiver in Scripture or in His creation. I don't accept that a Young Earth Position equates to the Scripture itself unless you can show how you get from point A to point B and then can show that you're interpretation is reasonable and then also consistent.

I really am at a loss here, the scriptures are so straight forward that it confuses you eh?

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.

Yes, it has always been seen as a 24hr day by mainstream christians throuout history. Until recently when evilutuion poked it's head in the door opened by old age theory. I find Gods Word has always been markedly accurate, even before any revelation I get, when I do get it I am blown away. [/quote]

I'm sorry.

You're wrong on this count. Have you read Church History? Have you read the Patristic Fathers?

Prior to the 4th century, very few commentaries even debated the use of the word "yom". There were a few who thought it might mean a literal 24 hour day, but it was by no means universal.

St. Augustine, in fact supported the fact that each "yom" was a period of time and that in fact was the majority view of the Church up until the last century when, apparently in a desire to debate evolutionists a groundswell movement arose in the United States. While the YEC position has grown tremendously and has been very successful in framing the argument as one of Biblical Literalism, the fact is that your assertions are not accurate.

I suspect it won't matter however. I very rarely see people of a YEC persuasion admit they are wrong. They usually leap to further arguments regardless of their accuracy because for some reason the YEC position is equated as on par with Scripture itself.

You may want to read some more on this before you attempt to use it again.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Hey! I have studied the word Yom as well. And it is used quite similarly as 'day' is in the english language. I interpret 'Yom" in Gen 2:4 in the context of past tense as "In that day" ie "back then" "In those day's" you know what I mean right? Edit: (both 'day' and 'day(s)' are yom. as in Gen 1:4)

Actually I believe "days" (plural masculine form) would strictly be yomim and not simply yom. Without the "im" (pronounced "eem") it would simply be singular.

IRQ wrote:Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I'm no expert, and haven't looked it up. But that is how I read this particular verse. The meaning of the word yom and the word day are identical, it's the context in which it's used that makes the difference.

As long as you are consistent and within the bounds of interpretation I have no issue. Just as I feel you should have no issue with other interpretations which differ to yours if they too attempt to treat Scripture seriously as the inspired Word of God.

IRQ wrote:My question to you would be if God meant a very long period of time as opposed to a 24 hour day, why would he not just come out and say it? Like, He could say Yeaow! thats yom!! I gotta wait till she cools down...

Well it is obvious to me God did not intend yom to be a 24-hour day due to certain issues and inconsistencies such a view raises in Scripture (some of which have been raised here such as how was there morning and evening on the first few days without a sun?). As such I can rightly return your question to ask if God meant a 24-hour day as opposed to an unspecified period of time, then why did He not come out and say it? In response your question and the reverse of your question I'd respond with a further question: Why did Jesus speak in parables? Perhaps God prefers a heart that seeks after Him for understanding, more than providing the answer itself.

IRQ wrote: yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

Thanks for the definition. Here we have several "literal" understandings, but can you point out where a specific amount of time in metric form (such as "24 hours") is described in the Strong's definition you provide? What of the "day" the Sun stood still for Joshua... need this be 24 hours? Or rather, does the literal understanding of yom you wish to advocate appear to be more dependant on the Sun? If so, then again there was no Sun on the first few days, no evening and morning caused by the Sun's setting and rising, and therefore your literal understanding of yom being translated as a solar day appears inadequate leading me to conclude the literal understanding of yom representing an unspecified period of time (much like your rendering of yom in Genesis 2:4) is more appropriate.

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're wrong on this count. Have you read Church History? Have you read the Patristic Fathers?

Actually, no. Please enlighten me. If the early transrcripts are inaccurate we should summon a council and redo the first bit of Genesis to suit our new scientific discoveries. You know, mayby we should get on bended knee and let the Lord know He screwed up becuase those YEC's just aren't getting it!

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Prior to the 4th century, very few commentaries even debated the use of the word "yom".

Thats simply because it was and still is self explanitory.

There were a few who thought it might mean a literal 24 hour day, but it was by no means universal.

Heh, I doubt that it was a mere 'few'. Unless they couldn't read.

St. Augustine, in fact supported the fact that each "yom" was a period of time and that in fact was the majority view of the Church up until the last century when, apparently in a desire to debate evolutionists a groundswell movement arose in the United States.

St. Augustine never believed in the Word of God less it was filtered through the catholic system (church) first.

While the YEC position has grown tremendously and has been very successful in framing the argument as one of Biblical Literalism, the fact is that your assertions are not accurate.

My 'assertions' are only as accurate as the Word. I don't try to read something that just simply isn't there.

I suspect it won't matter however. I very rarely see people of a YEC persuasion admit they are wrong.

It isn't me you need to convince.

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." -Hitler

They usually leap to further arguments regardless of their accuracy because for some reason the YEC position is equated as on par with Scripture itself.

Hey, all I'm doing is saying that the context of the word 'day' in Genesis lends itself to a literal day. On the other hand all you have proven is your ability to talk. Iv'e already spent more time on proving what I believe and why I believe it, I have imo gone above and beyond what should be nesesary to show it to you.

You may want to read some more on this before you attempt to use it again.

Pffftt. Iv'e read enough to know better. Iv'e supplied link after link quote after quote yet you don't refute them with any 'proof' other than stating what you believe to be true. What I'd like to see is a few quoted with links to reputable sources that take your side, not so much the old earth thing, but why you believe that the Word, when it says 'day' in Genesis means a long period of time. Thats all I'm asking here, come on throw me a bone.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're wrong on this count. Have you read Church History? Have you read the Patristic Fathers?

Actually, no. Please enlighten me. If the early transrcripts are inaccurate we should summon a council and redo the first bit of Genesis to suit our new scientific discoveries. You know, mayby we should get on bended knee and let the Lord know He screwed up becuase those YEC's just aren't getting it!

Irenaeus says:

• Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Origen wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and 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."

In "The City of God," Augustine wrote, "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," he added, "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Elsewhere in the same book he wrote:

• Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them."

I obtained these quotes within a book on creation which offers up three different views (Young-earth view, Day-age view, and The Framework view)—The Genesis Debate. The exchanges that take place in this book really puts to rest the misinformation that the days in Genesis 1 were "only" accepted as 12/24 hours by early Christianity. Infact if memory serves me correct, I believe those supporting Framework hypothesis provide evidence supporting the idea that acceptance of the young earth being the only valid interpretation is a relatively recent development which only occurred out of a response to the rationalism and scientism that took place during the Enlightenment.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote: Why did Jesus speak in parables?

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

What of the "day" the Sun stood still for Joshua... need this be 24 hours? Or rather, does the literal understanding of yom you wish to advocate appear to be more dependant on the Sun? If so, then again there was no Sun on the first few days, no evening and morning caused by the Sun's setting and rising, and therefore your literal understanding of yom being translated as a solar day appears inadequate leading me to conclude the literal understanding of yom representing an unspecified period of time (much like your rendering of yom in Genesis 2:4) is more appropriate.

Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

Nothing here that would seem to detract it from being interpreted as one 24hr period.

I can't believe your quoting the butcher of the Trinity

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.

link

Irenaeus, took that out of context as do some today. He should be renamed to 'erronous' Adam did die, the very minuite God passed judgment on him, he was cut off from the presence of God. It suprises me how many people forget about the spiritual side of Gods creation. Also the body began to degenerate from that point on.

Ambrose of Milan

"Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).

I would like to point out that God created grass and trees "yeilding seed and fruit before the sun was created. So, no photosynthisis. How could this be? I'll tell you. "God said".

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Theophilus of Antioch

"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Now we'll have to get some botonists in here to carve up the Word.

Yes, it has always been seen as a 24hr day by mainstream christians throuout history. Until recently when evilutuion poked it's head in the door opened by old age theory. I find Gods Word has always been markedly accurate, even before any revelation I get, when I do get it I am blown away.

Wrong again.

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

See the first block.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Must..ssttaayy awwakkee...

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

ἡμέρα
hēmera
hay-mer'-ah
Feminine (with G5610 implied) of a derivative of ἧμαι hēmai (to sit; akin to the base of G1476) meaning tame, that is, gentle; day, that is, (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context): - age, + alway, (mid-) day (by day, [-ly]), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.

EDIT:Supportive Link

Let's look at the context. Hebrews 4 talks about how we can enter God's rest, the same rest as God entered on the 7th day. Are you proposing that God only rested for 24 hours, then started creating again? Where is the proof for that? If so, how can we enter His rest, if He is not at rest from His creation?

The link you provided is not complete in its list of OT quotes of "yom", by the way. I suspect it is to fit an agenda, rather than to provide solid scholarship.

August wrote: Let's look at the context. Hebrews 4 talks about how we can enter God's rest, the same rest as God entered on the 7th day. Are you proposing that God only rested for 24 hours, then started creating again?

Not at all. He rested (past tense) from the works of His creation. At that point He was finished creating (past tense). That is He finished His work and rested on the 7th day. What he did on the 8th day and on others I'm uncertain.

The link you provided is not complete in its list of OT quotes of "yom", by the way. I suspect it is to fit an agenda, rather than to provide solid scholarship.

Which are missing?

I have listed below what is, to my knowledge, a complete list of every passage in the Bible using an ordinal number

I don't think the idea was to list all 1370 references to Yom.

I'll give IRQ a more detailed answer later tonight or tomorrow or when I get a chance.

I've not been being sarcastic at any point so I'm sorry if IRQ or anyone else has received it that way. Of course I've framed the questions to demonstrate my concern that YEC apply their hermeneutics selectively and not consistently.

It may be easy to see this as sarcastic, but I'm not trying to be.

Some may want to reassess their view of Catholics in terms of the history of the Church. Believe it or not, (here's where I'm fighting not to be sarcastic) Catholicism WAS Christianity to a large extent through the 1500's (and yes I know there was Eastern Orthodox traditions as well, but the influence and impact of that on the west was limited.)

3/4 of the time span from the death of Christ to now, the Catholic Church maintained the knowledge and tradition of the Church and about Christ. Even the Reformation was not originally an attempt to leave the church, but to reform it back to where it was before it strayed in some important areas. There was a strong counter-reformation following the protestant reformation in the Catholic Church and any who look at the reformation without factoring the national interests of wresting the Church's power and property from Rome is just being naive.

YEC wasn't really a big issue prior to that. First, science hadn't really proffered much that gave concern. But more than that, the mainline understanding of the Church wasn't hung up on 24 hour days. The general public did not have the Scriptures in their language and so the only people really aware of the issue were the ones with the education to understand the Hebrew or the Latin it was translated into. Granted it may be that they didn't care, but when you examine the writings of the Patristic Fathers, especially following Augustine, it just wasn't considered a big deal and the understanding of "yom" as a long period of time was just a given by the vast majority.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that YEC arose following the reformation for the following reasons.

1. The translations into English caused the more common use and understanding of "yom" to be lost in the translation. Protestants came to often treat the translation as the equivalent of the original language text. (KJV-only still do that. It's no coincidence that KJV-only people are almost universally YEC. Their misconception of inspiration in this regard compounds their error with what they think is a clear use of the word "day" in the common ENGLISH usage.)

2. The hard push on "Sola Scriptura" combined with the common understanding being different from the Catholic Church's majority view which was put forward primarily by Augustine, made it a point of differentiation that was attractive to protestants.

3. Even with the factors above, the movement didn't really pick up steam movement until the advent of Evolution as a Scientific Theory.) The need of long periods of time to accommodate the theory made that a target. Evolution has often been the target because fundamentalist Christians (and I'm a Christian although I describe myself as an evangelical rather than a fundamentalist) were battling the resultant philosophies and values that sprung out of the seeming release for "the need" of God. (I oppose those philosophies and values myself, but I prefer to be intellectually honest about the source of my disagreement than to try and argue circularly which is what I fear happens far too often.)

YEC does not have the mainstream of Christian thought and history behind it. It has approached and had majority positions recently in certain factions of protestantism, particularly in North America but it certainly has never been a majority when you factor in Roman Catholicism which today is pretty much officially Theistic Evolutionists (which I disagree with) and Protestantism around the world. It's more a passion in the US Church. That's why you see the qualifying statement "mainstream" or "true" "Christians" made by YEC'ers because their claim fails unless the control the definition tightly and can impose their biases outward. So if you want to ignore the fact that you're in the minority you push your definition to be as narrow as possible to make yourself a majority in your own liitle kingdom.

I promised I would answer my own questions earlier. I'll do so when I have more time.

Feedback is welcome both in dissent, qualification or modification. Much of this is original in my own thoughts although I'm sure they are not original as others must have made some of these observations.

Don't read more into this than what I'm saying directly. I'm not ignoring the doctinal differences with Catholicism. I'm just not accepting discounting 3/4 of Church History by blanket statments that approach bigotry.

Bart

IRQ Conflict wrote:

1st century man could never comprehend the span of a million years, so it was placed in terms he could understand.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;

Scientists believe there may be from 2 million to as many as 50 million kinds of animals alive today

link Not to mention anything extinct.

With you're own words... Please explain to me how Adam did this in 24 hours. See what I mean about selective hermeneutics?

Canuckster1127 wrote:With you're own words... Please explain to me how Adam did this in 24 hours. See what I mean about selective hermeneutics?

I cannot. AiG suggests that the animals Adam named were in fact less tha what I had thought, as in the hundreds perhaps? I thought he named all the species, but apparently not, I'll have to look into this further. Can you explain to me how it was that Christ raised himself from the dead? How can you explain the mental prowess of certain savants? Asking questions that have no answers to them prove nothing.

Regarding your previous post, I have a good sense of humour. Please don't hesitate to use yours, I won't be offended.

All your statements seem wonderfull and we all appreciate your time. But without substance they mean nothing. That is I need links or Scripture(s) to study, to know what your saying has any factual basis to them whatsoever or is it just thoughts from yourself.

One BIG concern I have with your train of thought is the doctrinal issues that seem to arise from this. Such as was pointed out at AiG-

now if the garden were sitting on a fossil record of dead things millions of years old, then there was the shedding of blood before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement. The Bible is clear: the sin of Adam brought death and suffering into the world. As Romans 8:19—22 tells us, the whole of creation 'groans' because of the effects of the Fall of Adam, and will be liberated 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God' (verse 21). Also, bear in mind that thorns came into existence after the Curse. Because there are thorns in the fossil record, it had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned.

link

The very idea that Gen 1 was refering to long or undefined periods of time undermines the doctrine of sin /death /redemption.