Evidence for God from Science

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 ESV)

I have read a lot of arguments about what the word "day" means but what to the words "evening" and "morning" mean in this context? A correct interpretation of the creation much explain the meanings of all three words. "Morning" and "evening" are sometimes used as metaphors for the beginning and end of something but in the creation days the evening comes before the morning.

Evening(ereb) and morning(boqer) can also mean disorder/chaos, and order respectively. In other words, evening and morning, the first day, can literally mean, from disorder to order, the first day(long period of time).

But don't take my word for it. Do an unbiased study yourself. When I say "unbiased", I mean don't search the answersingenesis site. Think outside your comfort zone.

I asked a Jewish friend the meanings of "ereb" and "boqer" - they mean "evening" and "morning." If anything else they could mean "settling" and "rising," - but not "chaos" and "order."

I checked on the meaning of the term "yom" which is "day" in Genesis and the rest of the OT.

"Yom" means "day," "event" or "in the event," "the time of" and "when."

"Yoman" means "day by day" or "an indeterminate time" or "an ongoing time."

The creation account uses the term "yom" and not "yoman"

So "day" in Genesis and the OT, can mean a simple day -with an evening and morning, or the time of an event, an event, but not necessarily "an indeterminate time."

If "yom" is an indeterminant time such as 10,000 years, then the following texts regarding the creation time would be null and void.
Exodus 20:11 31:17 and Genesis 2:3, say that "the seventh day" of the week "is the Sabbath (or rest) of the Lord thy God," and that it should be kept "for" or because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day."
The texts also say that "six days" are given for "work."

So this seventh day was established with creation on the basis of an act of God, which had an added blessing to it, and it was also sanctified by God, as well as hallowed or made holy by God. God would not ask people to keep a day holy if there was no specified time set apart or sanctified for it.

So I concluded that "day" means literal day and not anything else.

Furthermore, the Sabbath day was calculated from sunset to sunset - Friday sunset to Saturday sunset - or an evening and morning. This means that the physical activity of the sun determined what kind of time it was. The Sabbath keeping Jews can verify this.

If this is the case then, evolution, OEC and other theories must be questioned if not discarded altogether, that is, if we are to believe the Bible.

Starhunter wrote:
If this is the case then, evolution, OEC and other theories must be questioned if not discarded altogether, that is, if we are to believe the Bible.

Starhunter,

I hope you realize that those of us who are OEC, whether PC or TE, don't believe your interpretation. That doesn't mean we don't believe the bible. In other words, your interpretation is not equal to the bible.

Once I read this chapter on Christian interpretations of Genesis by Poythress which I found interesting.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-conte ... nesis1.pdf

I really enjoyed that link, Dr 1/137.

FL

Yes, Hana, this is a nice, easy to understand overview, and well worth taking the time to read. My only criticism is that, in asserting God has stopped creating anew, that is an observation based ONLY on THIS creation, and so we do not know of whatever other realms or dimensions He may be active in - or that He has been in the past.

1over137 wrote:Once I read this chapter on Christian interpretations of Genesis by Poythress which I found interesting.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-conte ... nesis1.pdf

A very revealing article indeed, from which I now understand that ; -

All the views of the creation that do not fully agree with the traditional YEC, have two commonalities, - they are all different and they all agree that the scriptures can be taken any which way one needs to.
And
The YEC has one key factor that is not shared by any of the others, - it makes no compromise whatsoever with science and it even contradicts science.

The article finishes with a caution on taking the YEC path by mentioning a few things that science has found are in conflict with the six 24 hour day creation.

In essence, if you believe in popular science, you had better find a new creation story to match it, and be prepared to leave the traditional view alone.

Starhunter wrote:
All the views of the creation that do not fully agree with the traditional YEC, have two commonalities, - they are all different and they all agree that the scriptures can be taken any which way one needs to.

Every creation view is different than the others. Including YEC. YECs take scripture the way they need to. They hold to a literal and concrete interpretation, to come up with a young earth belief.

The YEC has one key factor that is not shared by any of the others, - it makes no compromise whatsoever with science and it even contradicts science.

I think this is very telling. Especially for people who have studied science, and know from the evidence, that the universe is old. They are not forced to believe in a literal and concrete interpretation of scripture, when it comes to creation. For an OEC like myself, I still interpret scripture literally, and there's no compromise with what I see in creation. God inspired the bible, and He is the Creator of the universe. There can't be any contradictions between the two.

In essence, if you believe in popular science, you had better find a new creation story to match it, and be prepared to leave the traditional view alone.

We don't need to find a new creation story. Only a different interpretation.

And I can't stress this enough. What a believer believes about the age of the earth, has absolutely no bearing on salvation. The age of the earth is just a secondary belief, that believers are free to disagree about. And thankfully on this forum, Rich has given us the freedom to disagree, without our salvation, or our belief about scripture being God-breathed, coming into question. YEC is just one of many creation beliefs that a believer can believe. YEC is NOT THE one creation belief that is used to judge if we are serious about scripture.

This issue is so often divisive. Just recently, my pastor, whom is in no way anti-science, appears to have become drawn more toward YEC views of the length of creation days. He just spent some time at the Grand Canyon with a group of quite a few PhDs with YECS views. And he's teaching a new class on Creation in which he is going to use some of the materials that group has sent him. I'm concerned, as he is not very scientifically savvy, and as I well know many Christian scientists with old earth scientific views can look at the very same evidences and draw a very different explanation as to their causes. I just want him to present both views. I admit that, at first, before hearing OEC scientific views on the same evidences, YEC views can seem rather compelling. I know that he in no way would assert either view as a salvation criteria.

While holding to an OEC view and also taking a high view of scripture, I am open to the fact that it MIGHT be incorrect, or that the total truth is not held by either side, that it might be somewhere in the middle. Beyond that, as there are some mighty smart and knowledgeable theologians and scientists on both sides of the aisle, with many on both sides taking the belief that the Creation accounts are true and also God's Word, and with many agnostic on the time issue that nonetheless assert that the text allows for both young and old earth views, yet with challenging aspects of both. And after so much study of both Scripture and science from qualified Bible scholars and scientists in relevant disciplines, this tells me that we may never, in our mortal skins, accurately understand the truth of this matter. Which also tells me the time issue argument is often used as a divisive issue by the devil - as it is irrelevant in the hierarchy of FAR more important issues, like, salvation and what God wants us to know to better live more Godly and loving lives. And, as Rick has so often said, one can and millions believing in the truth and reliability of Scripture do have a variety of viewpoints on this issue. Only divisive people want to position it as some kind of litmus test for a more "authentic" or more spiritual believer.

Philip,

Are you going to be attending the creation class?

Philip, Are you going to be attending the creation class?

Rick, unfortunately (?), no, as I am teaching a class on conversational and relational evangelism. What I do plan to do is to send him some links to consider, both Scriptural and Scientific. Any you or others might suggest would be great.

Actually, I'm sorta glad I'm not attending, as I tend to get really irked at anyone pressing a YEC view that is using science to do so. Reason being is that I well know that those very same evidences often used to "prove" a young earth view are often interpreted otherwise by various scientists. There is more than one way that the evidences MIGHT have been arrived at but there is only one way that it actually WAS arrived at. There are just conflicting aspects to all of this. And asserting that the flood explains things has many of its own problems. And I just don't want to always be "that guy" - you know, the smart-alecky fellow who always wants to create controversy or debate (often, guilty as charged ). And so many who have not studied this issue like you and I often wrongly interpret one in disagreement with a ministry leader as causing problems or whatever. My pastor is a GREAT and really smart guy. I just know that initial exposure to various PhDs that suport YEC views can be very impressive to one without a science background. And a pastor like mine is smart enough to recognize the theological and scriptural problems with those like Hugh Ross that don't have the necessary theological and original language training, who want to assert scientific meanings where none was likely meant. And, of course, the spector of supporting OEC views is often falsely perceived to be necessarily anonymous with support for macroevolution.

But there are 1) important nuances to these issues and 2) it really doesn't make much sense to get bogged down in the traditional arguments over the time issue. As our scientific understandings are constantly changing and imperfect, and as the theological debate has serious points from both sides, I just am sick of the time issue. And then one runs into so many who place great faith in what science can tell us about these issues, and when TOLD or asserted that the Bible definitively contradicts those (without such things being certain or knowable), then people start to question whether Scripture can be trusted - another avoidable and pointless can of worms to dig up. And so then people get bogged down in the least important aspect of the reality that our Creator is responsible for all we can see or know of. And for what?

What I think is FAR more important to teach - both scientifically and Biblically - is that ONLY our Creator God can account for the creation of the universe and our incredibly unique planet, the diverse species and humans of earth. There are many powerful evidences for this. Are not such powerful evidences (the fine tuning, birth of the universe, DNA, necessary, highly complex parameters, etc, ALL powerful evidences that point to the necessity for a Creator not more important than getting bogged down in arguments over time or evolution? Are these not what should matter far more to the seeker or unbeliever - that no matter HOW the universe came into being and how life began - and no matter HOW LONG the time sequences were - that there is no way a universe with precise, incredibly complex guiding laws and mechanism came into being by random chance. The rest of the story are the supporting facts that are still being debated. But let's not get bogged down into arguments of "water into wine" or the parting of the Red Sea when one realizes an incredibly complex universe, precisely prepared for future earth life (no matter how long that took), began where there was none.

And I also think refuting UNGUIDED, random evolution to be an impossibility is key, as well as that the relevant Scriptual texts are factual and not merely allegorical or symbollic - I see enormous problems with believing they aren't speaking of actual, historic events and people.

One last thought - and I tend to agree with Hugh Ross on this one: If, as Scripture teaches, that the Creation and the heavens are ADDITIONAL testimonies of God's existence, sovereignty and power, why would He create it to only LOOK ancient if it is not? Wouldn't that seem to be a deliberate deception? I realize that many will use the instant creations of a fully adult Adam and Eve, undoubtedly walking through a garden with ancient-looking trees (that they say had been very recently created). Yet, IF God's desire is that as many will believe in Him as possible, wouldn't He want evidences that don't strongly appear contradictory to what His word teaches about such things? I find this particularly true as many dismiss the Bible because a SIMPLE, non-scholars reading of it seems to radically contradict modern science. In an age of great skepticism and learning, why would God want to confuse so many over this issue? Of course, we don't know God's motives, and many would reject Him no matter how Scripture and science lined up. No, a pre-scientific world would not need to know of such things, but God always knew of the skepticism and scientific endeavors of the present age. But if belief is the goal, why make that more difficult with evidence that seems to contradictory? Yes, many sat at the feet of Jesus doing miracles and still would not believe.

theophilus wrote:

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 ESV)

I have read a lot of arguments about what the word "day" means but what to the words "evening" and "morning" mean in this context? A correct interpretation of the creation much explain the meanings of all three words. "Morning" and "evening" are sometimes used as metaphors for the beginning and end of something but in the creation days the evening comes before the morning.

Well, that can't be LITERAL morning and evenings since they happen at times BEFORE the creation of the sun and starts to divide the day into "day and night" ( which only happens in chapter 14).
As for their order, it may simply be poetic verse for all we know.
IF we read Genesis 1 in a strictly literal fashion it should be noted that there is NO indication of SEQUENTIAL chronology in the sense that the second day happens IMMEDIATELY following the end of the first day, and so forth.

What we do have is a 1st day that takes ONE day to complete, then we have a second day that takes a day to complete BUT no indication that the 2nd day happened right after the 1st or that the 3rd day happened right after the 2nd.

We can even state, taking the verses literally, that any part of the creative process happened WHEN it happened and NOT directly after the prior event, ex:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

What we have here is the creation of the sun and stars ( which causes issues with the fact that life is already present on Earth from the prior act, but that is another discussion), the division of night and day and that this happened on the 4th day of creation ( no time frame is given as to WHEN it happened AFTER the 3rd day). Then, sometime after the 4th day ended, God created animal life on land, water and sea and that process took a full day and that process was the 5th day in which God created.

There is NO indication of time BETWEEN days or creative events at all.

PaulSacramento wrote:

theophilus wrote:

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 ESV)

I have read a lot of arguments about what the word "day" means but what to the words "evening" and "morning" mean in this context? A correct interpretation of the creation much explain the meanings of all three words. "Morning" and "evening" are sometimes used as metaphors for the beginning and end of something but in the creation days the evening comes before the morning.

Well, that can't be LITERAL morning and evenings since they happen at times BEFORE the creation of the sun and starts to divide the day into "day and night" ( which only happens in chapter 14).

The Bible says that God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day; it doesn't say he created the bodies that were the source of the lights at that time. The Bible clearly says that the earth is young; it doesn't tell us anything about the age of the rest of the universe.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... -universe/

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

theophilus wrote:

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 ESV)

I have read a lot of arguments about what the word "day" means but what to the words "evening" and "morning" mean in this context? A correct interpretation of the creation much explain the meanings of all three words. "Morning" and "evening" are sometimes used as metaphors for the beginning and end of something but in the creation days the evening comes before the morning.

Well, that can't be LITERAL morning and evenings since they happen at times BEFORE the creation of the sun and starts to divide the day into "day and night" ( which only happens in chapter 14).

The Bible says that God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day; it doesn't say he created the bodies that were the source of the lights at that time. The Bible clearly says that the earth is young; it doesn't tell us anything about the age of the rest of the universe.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... -universe/

The bible does NOT give us a dating of the earth at all, young or old.
The bible, literally, gives us a time frame of EACH creation event BUT no time frame of the time BETWEEN events.
That there was an evening and a morning BEFORE the sun and moon were created to DIVIDE the evening and the morning:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

It states that God created, on the this forth day of creation, lights to separate the day from the night and for these lights to be signs for the seasons, DAYS and years.

How could there be a LITERAL and CONCRETE evening and morning in terms of 24hour time or day(S), BEFORE God created the devices used to MEASURE Days?
It couldn't so it must mean that this evening and morning that existed BEFORE the creation of the Sun and Moon, had a different time element.

To read those passages in any other way is to NOT take the bible literally and to show NO FAITH in the word of God.