Evidence for God from Science

Mark 10:6

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

How do OEC explain away this Scripture and others, placing man at the beginning of creation- and not a billion yrs in-between?

Zacchaeus,

If you're not going to pay attention, I'm not going to waste my time posting. If you understood OEC like you claim, you'd know that OECs don't believe the sun was created on day 4.

Besides,

I already addressed this, here.

The sun was created on or before the first creation day. It became visible from the surface of the earth on creation day 4.
Basic OEC beliefs that you should know, if you understood OEC like you claim.



No need to be a smart butt- I think my point is right on target. In order to believe your view you must read into Scripture what isn't there... What does Scripture say? Certainly not that. At least YEC believes what the scriptures say... And I find them to be miraculous. It be too easy of a cop out to support my position to accept your view of when the sun was created, which would support literal days, not the reverse... Which is your entire argument against lit days, is the sun being created on the 4th day. If the sun was created day 1- then that's a no brainer to my position of 24hr days. Why is this ridiculous. As far as wasting your time, if that's how you feel then don't. My only credit to your new position is that we know that it's only been days that we've been discussing this, but it feels like billions of yrs... Lol
Why


"Plants created on the third creation day.
Sun was created on or before the first creation day.
Creation Days weren't all the same length. Probably millions or even billions of years long.

So, sun existed well before plants."

Sooo, you led me here? Why, because you said so? Where's your scriptural support???

Zacchaeus,

When you want to actually listen to what I'm saying, instead of trying to tell me what I believe, let me know, and I'll continue this conversation.

Until then, I have better things to do, than to waste my time with you. You clearly do not understand what OEC believes. And instead of listening to what I'm trying to tell you, to help you understand, you're just making up straw man arguments against what I believe.

All I'm trying to do, is help you understand what OEC actually is, and why OEC is a valid biblical interpretation of the creation account.

If you want to listen, and learn, let me know.

zacchaeus wrote:Acb,
I agree... He didn't create light, He said let there be light in reference to a dark world. I find it odd though that God is light and one of His persons the Spirit, hovered over the waters... And either 1. Was no light or 2. Proof He was the light. Genesis also seems to pete and repeat many of the same verbage. My responses above have been for kur. I see no gap... I see creation all at once simultaneously, or I hold to a 24hr day... And even those could be congruent. I simply do not see these long-aged days without looking super hard, and I really have no need to look that hard. It's interesting, I'll defend and discuss my position, but it of little importance, and def wasn't a primary focus of Moses when He wrote it... Scriptures always about Gods dealings with man. I'm at peace when my daughter desires and seeks to read the scriptures (she is 9), and she reads the Lord created everything in 6 days, I want to be privileged enough to understand it as a babe in Christ, exactly how she interprets it. Her understanding is precious and the Lord reveals her conscious and will prick her heart.

Why do you think it is of little importance if the bible tells us a former world perished?I mean sure history needs to rewritten because everybody is looking at everything from an evolution perspective but God's word tells us a former world perished. I think you need to read 2nd Peter 3:5-6 and you can read it from several different translations of the bible too.I don't know which translation you read but it makes no difference.Now because of dogma we have been led to believe that 2nd Peter 3:5-6 refers to Noah's flood,so they are claiming the former world that perished was the time between Adam and Eve to Noah's flood,they want you to believe this,however it is impossible basedon what the text says,a person must ignore the real facts about Noah's flood in order to believe that and yet that is exactly what they do and the sad thing is that it comes from people who seem so smart biblically.However it is not talking about the time before Noah's flood but a real former world that perished. The text of 2nd Peter 3:5-6 is pointing us to Genesis 1 and this is why in Genesis 1:2 the earth is flooded but also is why on day 2 God must divide the waters and remove water off of the earth,the earth is being restored and formed out of water in Genesis 1,NOT in Noah's flood. So simply read your bible and read the text of 2nd Peter 3:5-6 and you'll see that it has nothing at all to do with Noah's flood and it shows biblical ignorance to think it does. I do not care if they are a bible scholar,they are ignoring the facts about Noah's flood to believe that. They need to get out their bible and read and study Genesis chapter 7 about Noah's flood because they show that they do not know what they are talking about and whats worse? Is they will not change their mind and just continue to believe bible myths.YEC's do this even the bible scholars. I think somebody is paying them off or something and they should know better if they are a bible scholar trying to tell us what the bible says.

Wow...

Oh well.

zacchaeus wrote:Wow...

Oh well.

What does that mean bro?I'm not mad at you if you choose to be a YEC however I think that when we have these kinds of discussions about creation and the different interpretations in order to have a dialogue we must try to understand where each other are coming from and I have simply tried to explain to you the Gap Theory interpretation but it does no good if you don't seem to acknowledge it and just reject it without even understanding it or explaining why biblically you disagree,and not just deciding not to accept it based just on a belief. We are all Christians and this is a discussion about creation and there are different interpretations to discuss and this is what we have been trying to do,but it takes honest dialogue.

It smells of fruitcake here...

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:It smells of fruitcake here...

I believe you. All Canadians are fruitcakes.

Signed,

Non-fruitcake odored American

Zac, I note you keep saying "24 hour" days.
This actually shows an influence when you come to reading Genesis by YEC theology, and in particular AiG's.

To also be fair, likewise those who believe a day lasted an age of time, billions of years, well... if such OECs keep saying such, then truly we are reading in an alternate source of knowledge into the text.

Consider that an "ordinary day" isn't defined by a period of time, but rather "24 hours" is only a property we humans ascribe to an Earth day that we experience. Unless in Genesis this particular property of a day (time) is specifically mentioned, then we must not assume what Moses absolutely intended one way or the other.

What do I mean by "unless specifically mentioned"? Well, we can see in Joshua's long day (discussed below), just how the "time" property of a day is referenced within the context of a day lasting much longer than a 24 hour day. I'll provide an example below.

BUT, to simply ask the question: "How long was a day" in Genesis 1 -- is I'm starting to think, to immediately drop everything Moses is concerned about getting across to replace such with our own personal objective or rational vendetta against a position we find disagreeable. Seriously, I'm starting to see the mere asking of the question as even heretical to Moses' intention. It is a modern issue, even a modern question, that has no bearing upon the intention of Moses nor the text.

Here's a thought: Who is to say that all the properties we assign to an Earth day today through ongoing and familiar observation, held sway in the very beginning when God was setting everything in place and in motion?

Rather, the true essence of "day" in Hebrew terms (this is who we should be concerned with if wanting to understand the text more clearly)... for the ancient Hebrews "day" is defined as the Sun and moon going through the sky. In support of this, consider Joshua's long day (Joshua 10:12-14):

• 12Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
  “O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
  And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”
  
  13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
  Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
  Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
  
  14There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.

This text is very interesting. For a day is here defined as the Sun and the moon going through the sky. It is a long day because "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped." This is interesting in itself, but the text is further interesting because in Joshua it says the sun stopped and did not go down "for about a whole day."

This is a specific reference to a property of a day: time. Nowhere is time specifically referenced like this in Genesis 1. Fact is, we just don't know what was intended, and indeed I'd reason that Moses didn't intend anything other than using such as a literary device full of Sabbatical meaning and intent.

Therefore, unless the text signals otherwise with Moses assigning a primary concern to a day representing time like in Joshua (where it says the sun did not go down "for about a whole day"), then to merely ask the question how long is a day in Genesis was is to start to err and lose sight of what Moses is saying. The forest isn't being seen for the trees.

Again, how long a day was isn't at all cared for by Moses. Such has only been made the central focus, and raised as an issue to a level of orthodoxy by some Christians, in the past 100 or so years. And, I tell you all disagreeing with each other (myself included at times), look at how much such a stupid question polarises us Christians?

Yes, we can point the finger at the other side and say, "but they're so stupid believing the Earth is 6000 years old!" Or "they're so not believing in the same Gospel I believe." But over what? Over nothing Moses himself deals with, that's what! Rather, over an issue we've created through one simple question being asked that isn't answered in the text.

Moses did not care to shed light, and so neither should we. Rather we should focus upon and be enriched by the awesome points Moses is making, which really boils down to something quite simple: God created absolutely everything in the world, including us, and let me add also the God's rest that we can enter!

Kurieuo wrote:Zac, I note you keep saying "24 hour" days.
This actually shows an influence when you come to reading Genesis by YEC theology, and in particular AiG's.

To also be fair, likewise those who believe a day lasted an age of time, billions of years, well... if such OECs keep saying such, then truly we are reading in an alternate source of knowledge into the text.

Consider that an "ordinary day" isn't defined by a period of time, but rather "24 hours" is only a property we humans ascribe to an Earth day that we experience. Unless in Genesis this particular property of a day (time) is specifically mentioned, then we must not assume what Moses absolutely intended one way or the other.

What do I mean by "unless specifically mentioned"? Well, we can see in Joshua's long day (discussed below), just how the "time" property of a day is referenced within the context of a day lasting much longer than a 24 hour day. I'll provide an example below.

BUT, to simply ask the question: "How long was a day" in Genesis 1 -- is I'm starting to think, to immediately drop everything Moses is concerned about getting across to replace such with our own personal objective or rational vendetta against a position we find disagreeable. Seriously, I'm starting to see the mere asking of the question as even heretical to Moses' intention. It is a modern issue, even a modern question, that has no bearing upon the intention of Moses nor the text.

Here's a thought: Who is to say that all the properties we assign to an Earth day today through ongoing and familiar observation, held sway in the very beginning when God was setting everything in place and in motion?

Rather, the true essence of "day" in Hebrew terms (this is who we should be concerned with if wanting to understand the text more clearly)... for the ancient Hebrews "day" is defined as the Sun and moon going through the sky. In support of this, consider Joshua's long day (Joshua 10:12-14):

• 12Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
  “O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
  And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”
  
  13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
  Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
  Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
  
  14There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.

This text is very interesting. For a day is here defined as the Sun and the moon going through the sky. It is a long day because "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped." This is interesting in itself, but the text is further interesting because in Joshua it says the sun stopped and did not go down "for about a whole day."

This is a specific reference to a property of a day: time. Nowhere is time specifically referenced like this in Genesis 1. Fact is, we just don't know what was intended, and indeed I'd reason that Moses didn't intend anything other than using such as a literary device full of Sabbatical meaning and intent.

Therefore, unless the text signals otherwise, and Moses assigns primary concern to a day representing time like in Joshua where it says the sun did not go down "for about a whole day.", then to merely ask the question how long a day in Genesis was is to start to err and loose sight of what Moses is saying. The forest isn't being seen for the trees.

Again, how long a day was isn't at all cared for by Moses. Such has only been made the central focus, and raised as an issue to a level of orthodoxy by some Christians, in the past 100 or so years. And, I tell you all disagreeing with each other (myself included at times), look at how much such a stupid question polarises us Christians?

Yes, we can point the finger at the other side and say, "but they're so stupid believing the Earth is 6000 years old!" Or "they're so not believing in the same Gospel I believe." But over what? Over nothing Moses himself deals with, that's what! Rather, over an issue we've created through one simple question being asked that isn't answered in the text.

Moses did not care to shed light, and so neither should we. Rather we should focus upon and be enriched by the awesome points Moses is making, which really boils down to something quite simple: God created absolutely everything in the world, including us, and let me add also the God's rest that we can enter!

I have learned somethings from you especially like the link you posted with your discussion with Jac.I've started reading though it and have learned from it.I just think that it is important to have these discussions about creation just like any other church topic because I believe no side of the creation debate gets a pass and YEC's would have us believe everything is already sttled and really comes close to using the heretic argument in order to defend it acting like it is a salvation issue if you reject YEC and it is important to help people see through the smoke and mirrors to see the truth,this can only happen by discussing these issues.I realize that it can be a divisive issue however I believe it is still more important to expose wrong teaching even if it hurts peoples feelings,bad teaching needs to be exposed biblically ,even if the truth hurts.This is the only way anything is ever going to change. I really miss Jac and i learned things from him however I cannot help it if the truth I spoke hurt him or something. I did not make up anything I was telling the truth about AIG and yet the truth hurts him,yet I amtired of AIG slandering Gap Theorists and even rewriting history,editing Gap Theorists,claiming the Gap Theory was made uo up to accomdate evolution science and millions of years,this is a lie being told just to defend the YEC interpretation that came from Ellen G white a 7th Day adventist in the 1920's who was a false prophet in order to defend YEC. YEC was not the majority opinion amongst Christians,it was mostly either Day age or Gap Theory up until Ellen G White.It was Ellen G White that eventually led Henry Morris to write "The Genesis Flood" in the ealy 1960's before that it was mostly Day Agers and Gap Theorists in Christianity even amongst bible scholars,there are many bible scholars that held to the Gap Theory.

I 100% agree Moses wasn't focusing on the days in particular, yet he was instructed to write them down, and seemingly in detail to expound on each day. I'm also in agreement that he wasnt restricted in experience nor personality when he wrote it... By then they would of not only had the 6:1 model with the sabbath, they'd be experiencing days from sun up to sun down, which light, dark, day, night, would have all been observational in which He would have wrote to describe and compare to... The verbage seems to support this as light, dark, day, night, morning, evening are wrote over and over again. What I don't suspect is God allowing Moses to get the first part of His word, regarding creation wrong, nor to cause this much confusion. He could of simply said I created the earth long before man, it took billions of years, not days, I had prototypes in which I obviously created wrong, I tried dinosaurs, they all sucked, I destroyed the earth, yet it survived so I recreated life, made a bunch of stuff including man, and I tried again... However, this time I decided to redeem mankind, etc. But He didn't?

zacchaeus wrote:
He could of simply said I created the earth long before man, it took billions of years, not days

Betcha don't know what the only word is, in the ancient Hebrew language that Moses could've used to say that a day was billions of years long from start to finish?

Let me know if you need a hint.

RickD wrote:

zacchaeus wrote:
He could of simply said I created the earth long before man, it took billions of years, not days

Betcha don't know what the only word is, in the ancient Hebrew language that Moses could've used to say that a day was billions of years long from start to finish?

Yom? Yom tov? Yoyo ma? Yo, man?

The way this thread is going, we should ask the Dalaï Lama for His opinion. His Holiness has been around for some 48 reincarnations. Maybe He knew Adam & his rib personally...

Anonymous

Zac, to you the verbiage "seems" to support. Keyword there being "seems".
For another, the verbiage of Scripture when closely examined "seems" to support a longer period of time.

No further than Gen 2:4 do we literally read that: "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." (KJV)

The one reference I see in the Genesis creation text, of the property of time being assigned to day, and a day is likened to a generation (i.e., "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" re: the days in Gen 1 right)? How long is a generation? Indeed, even a day ("the day") in Gen 2:4 is said to cover generations. The KJV provides the most literally accurate word-for-word English translation from the original Hebrew.

I just point this out NOT to make a case for OECs, but to simply call the bluff on anyone who tries to say that the verbiage supports this or that. I've explored and debated this issue for around 20 years -- just look back over the threads here on this board. Heck, I could make a better case for YEC than probably AiG. And yet, the conclusion I've come to is that Scripture -- even Moses -- is by no means concerned with identifying how long a day is.

He just uses such, it seems as a literary style to convey what he sees as his main focus in identifying the creator of the world as the God of Israel. The fact you also identify a Framework style of setting up the kingdoms and then filling them in, should lend credence to you that Moses is very much concerned with literary style, but for what reason? To convey how long a day is, or what does setting up three kingdoms on days 1-3 only to fill them in on days 4-6 have to do with anything? Any meaning here possibly points to God's complete Lordship over all elements in Creation. He isn't just a god of earth, sea, air like the pagan gods, but the God of ALL. AND not some other nation's "God", but we're talking ISRAEL's God in particular. Since Moses takes us from Adam and Eve, eventually of Abraham with whom God makes the covenant, to Isaac, to Jacob aka Israel from whom the 12 tribes descended.

There is just so much meaning that is being conveyed when we look at the forest, which gets lost when we focus on one tree like the conflict that arises from the modern question of "how long is a day?" Moses just simply never intended a day to represent any period of time, otherwise he would have stated it. Scripture can be seen as supporting either/or. It was just quite simply not his concern and so it shouldn't concern us when we read Scripture.

So to you the verbiage in Scripture seems to lend support to the length of a day being 24 hours. To another, Scripture seems to support longer periods of time. To me, here I am saying that Moses doesn't at all deal with the question of time when using day -- he neither intends day to represent 24 hours nor intends day to represent billions of years -- even while having in mind an ordinary day, his intention in using such lies not in how long but elsewhere such as highlight God, Israel's God, as creator of all.

So let's quit trying to say what he absolutely intends one way or another by way of length. Why are we men always hung up on the length of things? And to those who ask, well it's good enough I think to respond that Moses doesn't deal with time, neither in the length of day in creation or length of the generations in God's creation.

I'm not sure how else I can state things better, so feel free to continue debating and focusing on an issue Moses saw no importance to. I guess that's my way of saying, I've said my piece for those who are willing to read what I'm getting at and have "the penny drop", so I am now checking out.

Many blessings!

zacchaeus wrote:I 100% agree Moses wasn't focusing on the days in particular, yet he was instructed to write them down, and seemingly in detail to expound on each day. I'm also in agreement that he wasnt restricted in experience nor personality when he wrote it... By then they would of not only had the 6:1 model with the sabbath, they'd be experiencing days from sun up to sun down, which light, dark, day, night, would have all been observational in which He would have wrote to describe and compare to... The verbage seems to support this as light, dark, day, night, morning, evening are wrote over and over again. What I don't suspect is God allowing Moses to get the first part of His word, regarding creation wrong, nor to cause this much confusion. He could of simply said I created the earth long before man, it took billions of years, not days, I had prototypes in which I obviously created wrong, I tried dinosaurs, they all sucked, I destroyed the earth, yet it survived so I recreated life, made a bunch of stuff including man, and I tried again... However, this time I decided to redeem mankind, etc. But He didn't?

What confusion? It is only confusing maybe if you were led wrong when it comes to creation and now you are facing other interpretations. It does'nt matter if you think it sounds silly,our opinions in this matter should matter least as possible when we are trying to find t5he truth of God's word. It seems to me your rejecting this interpretation because it does'nt make sense to you,however if you understand it truthfully it makesmuch better sense than YEC does. YEC'ss cannot tell you when angels were created in Genesis 1 without fabricating and leaving them out hoping you won't notice they are not mentioned to believe their interpretation. We know biblically angels exist and this is not a silly idea,we know Lucifer was an angel who rebelled against God,so why does it seem that you're willing to ignore when angels were created and when Lucifer rebelled in order to believe YEC makes the most sense?How can it make the most sense when angels and Lucifer's rebellion are left out? Am I saying YEC's don't believe in angels? No,I know they do but when it comes to creation they leave them out of the equation,yet don't even realize it. I know this because I used to be a YEC and I did it,until I found the truth and now everything makes much more sense for why the former world that had life in it perished. It was a big deal when Lucifer sinned against God long before Adam