Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

[Gabriel]

This poll is open to Reformed/Calvinist believers only. Not that we don't value other opinions, but for the purpose of this poll we would like Reformed/Calvinist opinions only.

[Holy Warrior]

Well, being of a somewhat scientific ilk, I used to believe in theistic evolution. However, I have grown in my faith over the past few years, and now lean towards a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why? Because I believe God is powerful enough to have done so, so it doesn't seem right to limit him to an unproven scientific theory.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter to me HOW God went about creating the universe; the important thing is that He DID.

Just my $0.02

[Gabriel]

Well said.

[theFijian]

Because I believe God is powerful enough to have done so....
This is surely not the issue, he is powerful enough to have done it in six seconds. No one here would dispute this.


At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter to me HOW God went about creating the universe; the important thing is that He DID.

I agree 100%. This debate takes up far too much time and space amongst Christians.

Andy

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Gabriel...Im Reformed in Denomination....so hope I was allowed to answer - cause I did.

Anyways, I believe in the literal translation...6 days. Why couldn't God do it? He coulda done it 6 hours had he chose to. We humans are so focused on 'time' we tend to hold God to our concept of it. I actually wonder why anyone who believes God is All Powerful - would question the literal translation...summing it up to be a 'parable' of some sort.

[Gabriel]

Gabriel...Im Reformed in Denomination....so hope I was allowed to answer - cause I did.

Anyways, I believe in the literal translation...6 days. Why couldn't God do it? He coulda done it 6 hours had he chose to. We humans are so focused on 'time' we tend to hold God to our concept of it. I actually wonder why anyone who believes God is All Powerful - would question the literal translation...summing it up to be a 'parable' of some sort.
Your 2 cents are always welcome!

[jazzbird]

I voted 'no.' I lean toward old earth creationism because I believe there is a lot of evidence in our world that suggests the earth is much older than 10,000 years. A literal six day creation isn't out of the question in my mind though. My belief has nothing to do with limiting God's power. He can create in whatever way He chooses.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I don't think the argument is about limiting God's power, but do you take the creation story as laid out in Genesis to be literal, or figurative.

[jazzbird]

I don't think the argument is about limiting God's power, but do you take the creation story as laid out in Genesis to be literal, or figurative.
I only mentioned limiting God's power, because a couple posters in the thread seemed to imply that it is somehow putting a limit on God not to believe in a literal six days.

I believe that creation unfolded in the sequence described in Genesis. I'm just not convinced that it took place in six literal days.

[oworm]

I voted "dont know" But like Holywarrior its only important to me that He did!!!

[IHaveQuestions]

I voted no in the poll.

.
I believe that creation unfolded in the sequence described in Genesis. I'm just not convinced that it took place in six literal days.
The above statement does not disagree with scientific theory, evolution does indeed follow the story in Genesis (the order in which things happened)

Science describes how it happened, but Genesis describes why it happened

[ArchaDl]

I voted yes. I believe God could and did make it in the literal six days. However, all things being relative, so is a day. So i believe that God did make the earth, the universe and everything in it in literally six spaces of time He named a day. That way both the scientific and the creationist views of the problem can be explained.

[theFijian]

I voted No. The poll was unrepresentative of my views. A literalist framework and an old-earth are not mutually exclusive. Many people hold to an old-earth creationist view. ie. the world was created in 6 literal days but is not younger than 10,000 yrs old.

Andy

[Holy Warrior]

Fijian, I apologise, I didn't phrase myself very well earlier, so allow me to clarify.

Of course I believe that God could have created the universe in an instant if He chose to. What I meant was that if He chose to record it in the Bible as being done in six days, who are we to say otherwise?


I accept that the word translated 'day' here may mean an indefinite period, and I in no way want to offend anyone who doesn't hold to the literal six day creation, I'm merely giving my views on the subject. I just find it easier to go with the literal 'day,' as I don't see us ever finding conclusive proof that it was otherwise.

Peace!

[Bulldog]

I voted no, because I am a theistic evolutionist.

[Cal]

Fijian, I apologise, I didn't phrase myself very well earlier, so allow me to clarify.

Of course I believe that God could have created the universe in an instant if He chose to. What I meant was that if He chose to record it in the Bible as being done in six days, who are we to say otherwise?

I accept that the word translated 'day' here may mean an indefinite period, and I in no way want to offend anyone who doesn't hold to the literal six day creation, I'm merely giving my views on the subject. I just find it easier to go with the literal 'day,' as I don't see us ever finding conclusive proof that it was otherwise.

Peace!Holy Warrior,

Please forgive me for butting in for a quick post. I just saw your post and I wanted to pass on a few thoughts that I have compiled on this subject.

Ok, I think the Word of God states plainly that God created everything in six day’s by simply commanding it to come into existence. “Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”

“Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day in the bible (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception. Whenever the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used individually with the word day in the bible (in fact 23 times each) outside of Genesis 1, the word day always means an ordinary day.”

“Whenever the word ‘night’ is used with the word day in the bible (52 times outside of Genesis 1) the word day always means an ordinary day. In other words, whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used, outside of Genesis 1 in the bible the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day.” Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp)

In an effort to fear God by respecting His Word I find it very difficult to try to fit the Genesis account of creation of six morning and evening days into millions of years. I mean the millions of year’s concept was a concept of someone who did not fear God and had no respect for the Word of God.

Darwin said:

"...During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian....


....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine...." From the autobiography of Charles Darwin

Now why would I want to deviate from the Word of God in order to struggle to squeeze into the Word of God concepts originating from a man like this?

Scriptures call him a fool.

Have you heard of Answers In Genesis ministries? It's a great Creationist ministry made up of hundreds of PhD's from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. who say there is no evidence for evoultion and a lot of evidence for a literal six day young earth creation.

Pls check out the web link I provided, I think you might find it very interesting.

[Knight]

I voted yes.

I favor YEC because I believe it involves the least amount of conjecture on the part of Scripture. I'm not fanatical about it though.

[Holy Warrior]

Thanks Cal, that's what I was meaning. What you've said there is pretty much why I've revised my point of view to a creationist perspective. Looking at that site at the moment- very interesting!

[myutmost4him]

...evolution does indeed follow the story in Genesis (the order in which things happened)

Science describes how it happened, but Genesis describes why it happenedI agree with Genesis being heavy on the "why" and lighter on the "how" but there are facts and clues within the "why". Properly applied science can help describe how our world came into being and how it works, but not science based upon assumptions or clouded by bias. Part of the problem is that we are shown Evolution to be fact and touted to be well proven by sound scientific methods... this is taught from our schools, books, and other media. It's totally understandable that we grow up thinking Evolution to be a fact. The fact however is that Evolution is a theory which isn't getting any closer to being proven, in fact it's due for another big Neo-Darwinism re-think to fit more square pegs into round holes. More and more scientists are questioning Evolution's assumptions, many coming from an Evolutionist background who see the many faults in the theory they had assumed to be true. Does this mean everything Evolution teaches is false? By no means, there is a lot of high quality science within the theory and a lot of truth, but don't accept the whole just because of some of the parts.

As to whether or not the earth was created in 6 days ... I'm not sure. I don't know if we can fully comprehend creation, or time for that matter. How does God deal with time? I concur with the majority in that if God can create a universe then questioning the time frame seems a little bit trivial, although it's interesting to think about. I would lean towards a literal 6 days just because that's what the Bible says.

[hesalive]

I voted, but I do not acknowledge a denomination aside from a disciple of Christ. Hope my input is welcome. I feel that a literal reading of the Bible is the logical 1st choice until by the scriptures it is clearly shown to be figurative. To bypass the literal reading staight into figurative reading seems a slippery slope to me. Most of the opinions I have heard on this seem to suggest evidence outside of scripture to support the choice of a figurative reading. My convictions lead me to place Gods word as the only absolute truth we have available to us. Mans opinions are just that. They are not reliable.

[jbarcher]

I don't know.

Cal--that's a genetic fallacy. Even if the theory of evolution came from a seven year old, that is still not an argument against it. More on genetic fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html).

[Cal]

I don't know.

Cal--that's a genetic fallacy. Even if the theory of evolution came from a seven year old, that is still not an argument against it. More on genetic fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html).Boy, then you haven't heard what comes from my seven year old then!

[jazzbird]

Are we arguing only literal six day (as in 24 hour) creation and evolution? Just need some clarification. I don't believe God used evolution to create the world and I don't believe he created it in a literal six days.

[jazzbird]

Holy Warrior,

Please forgive me for butting in for a quick post. I just saw your post and I wanted to pass on a few thoughts that I have compiled on this subject.

Ok, I think the Word of God states plainly that God created everything in six day’s by simply commanding it to come into existence. “Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”


Hey Cal. YOWM, the word for day actually does not always mean a literal day. It also mean an age, time or period. I believe there are other times in the Bible when Yowm refers to a period of time, such as The Day Of The Lord, which is mentioned numerous times in Scripture.

[Cal]

Hey Cal. YOWM, the word for day actually does not always mean a literal day. It also mean an age, time or period. I believe there are other times in the Bible when Yowm refers to a period of time, such as The Day Of The Lord, which is mentioned numerous times in Scripture.But when day is used throughout the entire bible like it is used in Genesis 1 it alway means a literal day, always.

“Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”

“Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day in the bible (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception. Whenever the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used individually with the word day in the bible (in fact 23 times each) outside of Genesis 1, the word day always means an ordinary day.”

“Whenever the word ‘night’ is used with the word day in the bible (52 times outside of Genesis 1) the word day always means an ordinary day. In other words, whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used, outside of Genesis 1 in the bible the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day.”

[jazzbird]

But when day is used throughout the entire bible like it is used in Genesis 1 it alway means a literal day, always.

“Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”

In Zecheriah the same language is used to describe a period of time, as is used in Genesis 1 - 'echad yom.'

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day [echad yom].

Zechariah 14:7-8 For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

Verse 8 makes it clear that this will not be one day, but an extended amount of time.

“Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day in the bible (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception. Whenever the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used individually with the word day in the bible (in fact 23 times each) outside of Genesis 1, the word day always means an ordinary day.”

“Whenever the word ‘night’ is used with the word day in the bible (52 times outside of Genesis 1) the word day always means an ordinary day. In other words, whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used, outside of Genesis 1 in the bible the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day.”

Psalms 90:6 In the morning grass flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.

Now, we know that the grass does not in fact grow in the morning and die at night, right?

Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Daniel's vision covers many years, not one evening and morning.



We are told in Scripture that God does not measure time as we do.

2 Peter 3:8 2 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If this is true, why must we measure time in creation as 24 hours?

[Cal]

In Zecheriah the same language is used to describe a period of time, as is used in Genesis 1 - 'echad yom.'

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day [echad yom].

Zechariah 14:7-8 For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

Verse 8 makes it clear that this will not be one day, but an extended amount of time. The Second Coming will be a unique day, like never seen before or recorded in history. To associate this "unique day" with ordinary day's used in the bible takes away it's "uniqueness," don't you think?

The Second Coming will change a lot, so it's not a good idea to compare Second Coming events and changes with normal every "day" events of today and yesterday.

Psalms 90:6 In the morning grass flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.

Now, we know that the grass does not in fact grow in the morning and die at night, right?Wrong, there are many flowers and other grasses that do just exactly that. The verse immediately preceeding your verse says, "You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew." In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away.

Not all grasses and flowers do that but some do and the verse is realting to grasses and flowers "like" these.

Consider the Morning Glories:

The Lesson of the Morning Glory!

© Copyright 1998 by Veronica M. Hay
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I planted seeds in my little garden this year.
I have never planted seeds before because I am not a very
patient person and waiting for the little green shoots to
rise above the ground was just too much for me.

But this year, I thought I would give it a try.
I thought it would be a good metaphor for me to plant
something and watch it grow, much as I have many times,
planted thoughts, dreams and affirmations and watched
many of them become a reality.


And so in the Spring of this year, I planted my garden.
I chose many types of flowers and among them, Morning Glories.
Within a month, many of the other flowers were bursting
through the earth, but not the Morning Glories.

Each morning I would run outside to check on them and nothing,
nothing for several weeks more. I was about to give up on them.
I was sure that they just did not 'take' so to speak.
And then one day, it happened!

They had broken through the earth and were starting to climb.
And climb and climb and climb they did....
with their big beautiful heart shaped leaves.

And so the saga continued, nothing for weeks and weeks and
weeks but more and more beautiful leaves. And I thought to myself,
"Well, leaves are nice, but that is all I will probably get at this point.
" And then one fine and glorious morning, there it was,
the most beautiful sky-blue morning glory I have ever seen!!!
It seemed like a miracle to me. I had waited over 3 months for
this one delicate, funnel-shaped flower to show up and
now here it was, in all its splendor.


It reminded me of just how many times I had waited in life for
something I had longed for and how incredible it felt when it
finally arrived and also how many times, that I had wanted to
throw in the towel and just give up.


But I wasn't prepared for what was to happen next with these
little flowers and I was surprised and deeply saddened by it.
Roses and geraniums and daisies and most other flowers bloom
and stay around for a while but not Morning Glories.
Morning Glories open themselves up to the world, in the morning,
in all of their glory, hence the name Morning Glory.
And if you look closely at them, you will see how extraordinary
they are both in colour and texture and that in their centre is
a kind of golden light that shines from within.


But here is the hard part...
At the end of the day, they turn a most beautiful shade of lavender,
and then close up, wither and die. They live for only one day
and then they are gone.


I cannot tell you how much this saddened me and what a profound
effect this little flower had upon my life. I kept thinking how
sad to be so beautiful and live for only one day.
And then I suddenly realized what a gift they were.

You see it doesn't matter how long your life is.
It only matters that you were here, in all your glory,
that you opened up completely and let your light shine
and that you brought joy to those who came into contact with you.
That's what matters to the morning glory
and that's what really matters to all of us.


The morning glories make me appreciate every new day now,
in a way I didn't before. Each evening I go and visit with
them knowing those particular ones won't be here tomorrow,
new ones will take their place.
If we knew when we woke up in the morning,
that we only had that one day to really live,
life would be very different indeed for many of us.

Now, each morning I give thanks that I have been given
the gift of another day in all its glory.
We can learn from all of life if we remain open
to the beauty that is all around us.
And nature can be one of our greatest teachers.

What a profound lesson from such a simple flower.
Thank you, my sweet little morning glories!


Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Daniel's vision covers many years, not one evening and morning.This is support for a literal day, it is merely referring to how long the vision took. That's why Daniel fainted afterwards, he was tired because of the vision took all day and night.

DAN 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

We are told in Scripture that God does not measure time as we do.

2 Peter 3:8 2 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If this is true, why must we measure time in creation as 24 hours? Because we are not the Lord. The Lord created day's for us to live in but not Himself. He is outside time. Notice also the word day used in this verse is just another example of how the bible refers to the word day as a 24 hour day otherwise the verse becomes meaningless.

[jazzbird]

The Second Coming will be a unique day, like never seen before or recorded in history. To associate this "unique day" with ordinary day's used in the bible takes away it's "uniqueness," don't you think?

The Second Coming will change a lot, so it's not a good idea to compare Second Coming events and changes with normal every "day" events of today and yesterday.

What this version translates as 'unique day' is 'echod yowm,' the same words used in Genesis 1. I don't understand why that is not relevant simply because it is prophecy. I'm just not convinced that a numeral added to the word yowm means that it can only be a 24 hour period. The definition of the word clearly states that it can be a period of time.

Getting beyond the specifics of words, I find some of the young earth theories to be problematic, and that is the main reason that I believe old earth creationism is more likely.

Wrong, there are many flowers and other grasses that do just exactly that. The verse immediately preceeding your verse says, "You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew." In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away.

Not all grasses and flowers do that but some do and the verse is realting to grasses and flowers "like" these.

But that logic doesn't make sense in light of the fact that Moses is comparing man's life to the grass. The grass withers in winter, as man withers in the winter of life. Man does not live one day, but for a period of time.

As for the morning glory, only the blossom withers at the end of the day; the plant itself does not. I have not heard of grasses that die in a day, but I don't know much about horticulture.

According to Strong's the word translated grass used here is 'chatsiyr' and the definition is 'grass, leek, green grass, herbage.' Wouldn't herbage be considered the plants that animals eat? I don't know, to say that Moses is referring to specific types of flowers that close up at night, or wither in a day, just seems quite a bit of a stretch to me.

Perhaps we are pulling this poll too much off topic though. What do you think? I tend to do that sometimes. :)

[Cal]

What this version translates as 'unique day' is 'echod yowm,' the same words used in Genesis 1. I don't understand why that is not relevant simply because it is prophecy. I'm just not convinced that a numeral added to the word yowm means that it can only be a 24 hour period. The definition of the word clearly states that it can be a period of time.

Getting beyond the specifics of words, I find some of the young earth theories to be problematic, and that is the main reason that I believe old earth creationism is more likely. But if we just let the Scriptures translate itself it starts to become clear this is a unique day that "is neither day nor night."

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

Prophecy is not the point here, the point is this is a new time, a new heaven and a new earth. There is no longer day nor night and at evening there will be light. That is what this Scripture is saying. To compare this unique day description to ordinary day's and then say "see ordinary day's must not be ordinary days" defeats the whole purpose of what this Scripture is trying to convey with there being a "new day" at the Second Coming the like of which has never ever been seen before on earth before.

But that logic doesn't make sense in light of the fact that Moses is comparing man's life to the grass. The grass withers in winter, as man withers in the winter of life. Man does not live one day, but for a period of time.

As for the morning glory, only the blossom withers at the end of the day; the plant itself does not. I have not heard of grasses that die in a day, but I don't know much about horticulture.

According to Strong's the word translated grass used here is 'chatsiyr' and the definition is 'grass, leek, green grass, herbage.' Wouldn't herbage be considered the plants that animals eat? I don't know, to say that Moses is referring to specific types of flowers that close up at night, or wither in a day, just seems quite a bit of a stretch to me.

Perhaps we are pulling this poll too much off topic though. What do you think? I tend to do that sometimes. I think these comments are very helpful for everyone to understand why they believe what they believe.

Morning glories are just one example of how, as Jesus put's it "God clothes the grass (thru flowers)", except these flowers bloom in the morning and die at night. I used Morning Glories as an example because of it's obvious parallel with the verse and the comment that was made that this never happens. There are many other examples of grasses and flowers that have the same characteristics.

Having said that what I really believe the Holy Spirit is referring to is just green grass as you have mentioned.

Again, if we let Scripture translate itself we can see how the Holy Spirit specifically uses grass withering away in one day

JAM 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

I can't tell you how often this has happened to me personally in Florida, we would sod early in the summer morning fresh green grass and by the end of the day patches of yellow would begin to appear everywhere throughout the yard because of the scorching sun. Surely you have seen this in the summer as well. Anyway, we would end up in a battle of watering and trying to save this grass for days, and quite frankly with about a 50% success rate.

I have also seen this in my yard with seasoned grass in late spring after days of cool spring rains fresh sprouts would begin to grow and be a bright green in the morning and then in just one unusally hot scorching spring day some of that grass would begin to yellow by late afternoon. It is so frustrating fighting the sun sometimes.

This is not unusual at all.

[jazzbird]

But if we just let the Scriptures translate itself it starts to become clear this is a unique day that "is neither day nor night."

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

Prophecy is not the point here, the point is this is a new time, a new heaven and a new earth. There is no longer day nor night and at evening there will be light. That is what this Scripture is saying. To compare this unique day description to ordinary day's and then say "see ordinary day's must not be ordinary days" defeats the whole purpose of what this Scripture is trying to convey with there being a "new day" at the Second Coming the like of which has never ever been seen before on earth before.

I don't think I believe this is a new time in the way that you do. I believe The Day of The Lord is His second coming - It is the time of His wrath as well as the time of our restoration. The new heaven and new earth have not yet come. The description of it being neither day nor night, yet there is light lines up with other descriptions of the end times:

Matthew 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Revelation 6:12-17 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


think these comments are very helpful for everyone to understand why they believe what they believe.

Morning glories are just one example of how, as Jesus put's it "God clothes the grass (thru flowers)", except these flowers bloom in the morning and die at night. I used Morning Glories as an example because of it's obvious parallel with the verse and the comment that was made that this never happens. There are many other examples of grasses and flowers that have the same characteristics.

Having said that what I really believe the Holy Spirit is referring to is just green grass as you have mentioned.

Again, if we let Scripture translate itself we can see how the Holy Spirit specifically uses grass withering away in one day

JAM 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

I can't tell you how often this has happened to me personally in Florida, we would sod early in the summer morning fresh green grass and by the end of the day patches of yellow would begin to appear everywhere throughout the yard because of the scorching sun. Surely you have seen this in the summer as well. Anyway, we would end up in a battle of watering and trying to save this grass for days, and quite frankly with about a 50% success rate.

I have also seen this in my yard with seasoned grass in late spring after days of cool spring rains fresh sprouts would begin to grow and be a bright green in the morning and then in just one unusally hot scorching spring day some of that grass would begin to yellow by late afternoon. It is so frustrating fighting the sun sometimes.

This is not unusual at all.

If the Scripture is talking about regular green grass, it just makes more sense to be speaking of a period of time. Though grass can be burnt by the sun in a day, that is not the norm. Granted you probably see a lot more scorched grass down in Florida than I do up in Wisconsion - grass is usually pretty lush up here. :) Anyway, I don't find there to be any reason for us not to take the reading as a period of time.

We often talk of human lives as seasons. James and others have created comparisons between grass and man to relay the fleeting nature of life. The simile makes more reasonable sense when we view it as a period of time. The grass is vibrant and growing (and alive) in the spring and summer, but by winter the frost and snow come, and kill the grass, or in the case of James, our lives may be destroyed by an empty pursuit or a tragedy represented by the summer's scorching sun. In the same way, we talk about people being in the spring, summer, fall and winter of their lives.

I don't believe your interpretation is wrong, I just like mine better. :) But seriously, whether the intent of this comparison is to convey a 24 hour day or a period of time isn't essential to our understanding of creation. There are places in the Bible where the duration of time is not clearly spelled out for us.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I agree with Genesis being heavy on the "why" and lighter on the "how" but there are facts and clues within the "why". Properly applied science can help describe how our world came into being and how it works, but not science based upon assumptions or clouded by bias. Part of the problem is that we are shown Evolution to be fact and touted to be well proven by sound scientific methods... this is taught from our schools, books, and other media. It's totally understandable that we grow up thinking Evolution to be a fact. The fact however is that Evolution is a theory which isn't getting any closer to being proven, in fact it's due for another big Neo-Darwinism re-think to fit more square pegs into round holes. More and more scientists are questioning Evolution's assumptions, many coming from an Evolutionist background who see the many faults in the theory they had assumed to be true. Does this mean everything Evolution teaches is false? By no means, there is a lot of high quality science within the theory and a lot of truth, but don't accept the whole just because of some of the parts.

As to whether or not the earth was created in 6 days ... I'm not sure. I don't know if we can fully comprehend creation, or time for that matter. How does God deal with time? I concur with the majority in that if God can create a universe then questioning the time frame seems a little bit trivial, although it's interesting to think about. I would lean towards a literal 6 days just because that's what the Bible says.
:clap: :clap: ...good job!;)
HTD

[Cal]

I don't think I believe this is a new time in the way that you do. I believe The Day of The Lord is His second coming - It is the time of His wrath as well as the time of our restoration. The new heaven and new earth have not yet come. The description of it being neither day nor night, yet there is light lines up with other descriptions of the end times:

Matthew 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Revelation 6:12-17 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? .I see. So you don't think these verses are referring to the Second Coming? OK, I understand where you are coming from now.

But it seems rather clear that they are, I mean what about these immediate preceeding verses:

ZEC 14:3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.

ZEC 14:4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

It sure seems like the Second Coming to me with a unique "day" only known to the Lord where there is no day or night but only light.

It just seems very inappropriate to compare this to the day's we are in now and then say "who knows what a real day is?!?"


If the Scripture is talking about regular green grass, it just makes more sense to be speaking of a period of time. Though grass can be burnt by the sun in a day, that is not the norm. Granted you probably see a lot more scorched grass down in Florida than I do up in Wisconsion - grass is usually pretty lush up here. Anyway, I don't find there to be any reason for us not to take the reading as a period of time.

I don't believe your interpretation is wrong, I just like mine better. :) But seriously, whether the intent of this comparison is to convey a 24 hour day or a period of time isn't essential to our understanding of creation. There are places in the Bible where the duration of time is not clearly spelled out for us.Fair enough!

But, I did do a little research to see if the grass in Palastine was as bad as Florida and sure enough it is worse.

In Fausset's Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of Biblical Imagery there is commentary on the grass in Palastine pertaining to this exact verse in question. The commentary indicates that because of the hot dry climate grass will suddenly turn green at the slightest dew and without even a single rain drop.

Also it will wither by mid-afternoon because of the scorching sun. So it does not look rare at all, but really rather quite normal for the area. Florida grass is not so dramatic but these quick changes are not unusual there either.

I can appreciate you don't see this in Wisconsin.

But to use these points that this "just doesn't happen," or "it is extremely rare," and therefore a day can't mean a day seems to be forcing an interpretation on Scripture that just isn't there. Maybe it's just our lack of understanding of the area and climate that is the problem and not the common meaning of the word "day."

Of course this all get's back to the point of why would the Holy Spirit use the word "day" to mean a literal 24 hour day 513 times in Scripture the exact way it is used in Genesis 1 but not mean a 24 hour day in Genesis 1?

[jazzbird]

Cal, I apologize if I have come off arguementative or disrespectful in any way. That's not my intention at all. I believe that your views are valid, but I believe there are other considerations as well. I am not trying to say that you are wrong. My views on this matter are not set in stone.

I see. So you don't think these verses are referring to the Second Coming? OK, I understand where you are coming from now.

But it seems rather clear that they are, I mean what about these immediate preceeding verses:

ZEC 14:3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.

ZEC 14:4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

It sure seems like the Second Coming to me with a unique "day" only known to the Lord where there is no day or night but only light.

It just seems very inappropriate to compare this to the day's we are in now and then say "who knows what a real day is?!?"

Perhaps I was not clear in my statements about these verses. I do believe that this is in reference to the second coming as I said in my previous post, but I don't know your eschatological viewpoint, so maybe that is where we are miscommunicating. (?)

You seemed to imply that the references to neither day nor night, etc. refer to the new heaven and new earth, and I was simply saying that I believe it to be the cosmic events described in the Olivet Discourse and elsewhere. I believe that it is at this time Jesus returns to take up His church and to pour out His wrath on the rest of the world. I don't believe this to be a single day, but rather a period of time, and that is the only reason I brought The Day of The Lord up in the first place. You said that nowhere in Scripture is an ordinal used with the word 'yowm' when it didn't mean a literal day. I was just presenting an example of when it does, but you say it is invalid and inappropriate, yet I don't understand why. The fact is, the same words used in Genesis 1 are used to refer to the Day of The Lord, which is not a single 24 hour day.

As I said before, I am not trying to be arguementative. I say it is a valid point and you say it's not. I doubt we will change each other's minds, so maybe we should just drop it unless either of us has something new to add. No sense in saying the same things over and over, right? :)

Fair enough!

But, I did do a little research to see if the grass in Palastine was as bad as Florida and sure enough it is worse.

In Fausset's Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of Biblical Imagery there is commentary on the grass in Palastine pertaining to this exact verse in question. The commentary indicates that because of the hot dry climate grass will suddenly turn green at the slightest dew and without even a single rain drop.

Also it will wither by mid-afternoon because of the scorching sun. So it does not look rare at all, but really rather quite normal for the area. Florida grass is not so dramatic but these quick changes are not unusual there either.

I can appreciate you don't see this in Wisconsin.

But to use these points that this "just doesn't happen," or "it is extremely rare," and therefore a day can't mean a day seems to be forcing an interpretation on Scripture that just isn't there. Maybe it's just our lack of understanding of the area and climate that is the problem and not the common meaning of the word "day."

Of course this all get's back to the point of why would the Holy Spirit use the word "day" to mean a literal 24 hour day 513 times in Scripture the exact way it is used in Genesis 1 but not mean a 24 hour day in Genesis 1?

In my last post I did not say that it "just doesn't happen" or that "it is extremely rare" - well, maybe I implied it by saying that it's not the norm, and I can admit to being wrong. Yes, the whole world is not like the Midwest. ;) I thought you made some good points. I was just presenting others. I can agree that you could be right, but I see no reason why it can't be taken more figuratively too. As someone who studies literature, perhaps I see imagery in words more often than others. I don't believe that it is good or bad, I just think that it does shape how I understand things.

As I said before, I don't believe this grass arguement is essential to our understanding of creation. Perhaps if you, or others are interested, we could present some other issues that deal with OEC and YEC. Or we can keep talking about grass. :)

[theseed]

This poll is open to Reformed/Calvinist believers only. Not that we don't value other opinions, but for the purpose of this poll we would like Reformed/Calvinist opinions only.
What does Calvinism have to do with the poll?

[theseed]

I voted no, because I am a theistic evolutionist.
Doesn't the notion of Adam comming from monkeys undo the orgin of Sin? What about God being made in the image of a monkey? How do you reconcile thiestic evolution with the fall of man?

[Bulldog]

Doesn't the notion of Adam comming from monkeys undo the orgin of Sin?

Not at all.

What about God being made in the image of a monkey?

What do you mean?

How do you reconcile thiestic evolution with the fall of man?

Things evolve. Man is fallen. How can't the fall be reconciled with evolution?

[Cal]

Cal, I apologize if I have come off arguementative or disrespectful in any way. That's not my intention at all. I believe that your views are valid, but I believe there are other considerations as well. I am not trying to say that you are wrong. My views on this matter are not set in stone. Jazzbird, No I apologize. I must have come off to you as being upset or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not see the least bit of you being argumentative or disrespectful in any way. You have been nothing but kind and very respectful and have demonstrated the highest level's of Christian humbleness and godliness in all your conversations.

I feel awful now because I must have come off as being upset or something.

Every comment I made in my last post was sincere without the slightest bit of sarcasm. I hate this medium sometimes because you can't look a person in the eye or hear voice inflections and as a result it can be very confusing as to someone's true intent.

I am ao sorry I have upset you.

Perhaps I was not clear in my statements about these verses. I do believe that this is in reference to the second coming as I said in my previous post, but I don't know your eschatological viewpoint, so maybe that is where we are miscommunicating. (?)

You seemed to imply that the references to neither day nor night, etc. refer to the new heaven and new earth, and I was simply saying that I believe it to be the cosmic events described in the Olivet Discourse and elsewhere. I believe that it is at this time Jesus returns to take up His church and to pour out His wrath on the rest of the world. I don't believe this to be a single day, but rather a period of time, and that is the only reason I brought The Day of The Lord up in the first place. You said that nowhere in Scripture is an ordinal used with the word 'yowm' when it didn't mean a literal day. I was just presenting an example of when it does, but you say it is invalid and inappropriate, yet I don't understand why. The fact is, the same words used in Genesis 1 are used to refer to the Day of The Lord, which is not a single 24 hour day. No, you have been very clear in your statements, but now I see the miscommunication! You thought I said that, "nowhere in Scripture is an ordinary day used with the word 'yowm' when it didn't mean a literal day," and I didn't say that.

I said this:

"I think the Word of God states plainly that God created everything in six day’s by simply commanding it to come into existence. “Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”



“Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day in the bible (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception. Whenever the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used individually with the word day in the bible (in fact 23 times each) outside of Genesis 1, the word day always means an ordinary day.”



“Whenever the word ‘night’ is used with the word day in the bible (52 times outside of Genesis 1) the word day always means an ordinary day. In other words, whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used, outside of Genesis 1 in the bible the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day.” Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp)


Therefore your example of the most unique day in the history of the world, where there is no night or day, as a description of how a day could not be a 24 hour literal day was puzzling to me. This is an obvious example of when day is used to mean something we have absolutely no idea of what it could mean, because as your verse say's "only the Lord knows it."

But this is not how day is used in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1 day is used with a number attached and with a morning and evening reference. And in every single instance, which totals 513 additional times throughout Scripture, when day is referenced in this fashion it means a 24 hour literal day. It also references to a seven day week which we all still adhere to and a seventh day sabbath that was adhered to for thousands of years.

These days we all know and are very familar with.

Of course, as previously mentioned, when a "unique" day, as Scripture references that "is known only to the Lord," and has "neither night nor day" is used in Scripture, well that kind of day would have absolutely no parallel with the ordinary morning and evening days as we have known for thousands of years and as we know them today.

This verse would not be a good referenece to compare to ordinary days or to any reference of day in Scripture, except a day of the Second Coming, simply because it is a day no one has obviously seen before or knows anything about yet.


As I said before, I am not trying to be arguementative. I say it is a valid point and you say it's not. I doubt we will change each other's minds, so maybe we should just drop it unless either of us has something new to add. No sense in saying the same things over and over, right?I agree, but I want to change my opinion if I'm wrong and these debates are so good for testing your beliefs to ensure they are firmly rooted in Scripture.

I think we are miscommunicating and it's only fair I understand exactly what you are saying so I don't misunderstand your point and miss what I should be learning and how I should change my beliefs, and of course, vice versa.


In my last post I did not say that it "just doesn't happen" or that "it is extremely rare" - well, maybe I implied it by saying that it's not the norm, and I can admit to being wrong. Yes, the whole world is not like the Midwest. I thought you made some good points. I was just presenting others. I can agree that you could be right, but I see no reason why it can't be taken more figuratively too. As someone who studies literature, perhaps I see imagery in words more often than others. I don't believe that it is good or bad, I just think that it does shape how I understand things. Thank you again for your obvious demonstration of a glodly and humble attitude.

What I was referring to was you comments in your previous post of;

"Now, we know that the grass does not in fact grow in the morning and die at night, right?", which you later revised in your last post to say,

"This is not the norm."

Now we know that it does happen and it is normal in Israel. Therefore, your conclusion, based on this "never happening" and this "not being normal," is not correct. Therefore you now must agree that your Psalm 90 verse could be and probably is a 24 hour day.

As I said before, I don't believe this grass arguement is essential to our understanding of creation. Perhaps if you, or others are interested, we could present some other issues that deal with OEC and YEC. Or we can keep talking about grass. It's entirely up to you, and I would love to continue discussing the bankruptcy of the evolution story because it needs to be openly put to shame for all the damage it is doing to the Word of God and to our society today.

But please remember Jazzbird, I didn't bring-up grass, or Daniel's visions that took him all morning and night to see, or the unique unknown day's of the Second Coming as a defense that the morning and evening creation day's don't mean 24 hour days.

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to dwell on these defenses much longer either.

[Bulldog]

What does Calvinism have to do with the poll?

Nothing really. The poll just wants to see whta Calvinists think, as opposed to other groups.

[theseed]

Bulldog, did we evolve into sinless beings, and then fall into sin?

[Bulldog]

Yes.

What point are you trying to make?

[theseed]

I'm tired, so I'm not really sure :yawn:

Evolution describes a haphazard process whereby we came to be formed by accident. While other humanoind species went extinct. How do you see a Soveriegn God has doing something haphazardly?

There are other things as well that evolutionist believe, but are contrary to the Genesis account.

So to make evolution and popular science mesh withthe bible you either have to reject parts of evolution or reject parts of Genesis as being literal. Now with Gen. 1 and 2 being figurative, why would Gen. 3 be literal?

Do you take the Gen. 3 story figuratively?

[Bulldog]

Evolution describes a haphazard process whereby we came to be formed by accident. While other humanoind species went extinct. How do you see a Soveriegn God has doing something haphazardly?

Evolution is not an accident, unless it was not guided. Deity guided evolution is not an accident.

Do you take the Gen. 3 story figuratively?

Yes, but that does not mean I just discard it. It carries an important theological message (the fall of man).

[theseed]

Yes, but that does not mean I just discard it. It carries an important theological message (the fall of man).

But if its figurative, then man did not really fall did he? Where did sin come from if this is figurative? And at which point did hominids evolve into a human race that was in the image of God?

[jazzbird]

Cal - no need for the apology, really. I totally agree that it is very difficult to read people correctly in this medium. I sensed some sarcasm - and larger type size :) - and, well, sometimes I can be too sensitive and read too much into things. Please don't feel bad as it was my misunderstanding. I'm not at all upset. :)

No, you have been very clear in your statements, but now I see the miscommunication! You thought I said that, "nowhere in Scripture is an ordinary day used with the word 'yowm' when it didn't mean a literal day," and I didn't say that.

Actually, I said "ordinal" and not "ordinary." I do understand what you posted previously.

Therefore your example of the most unique day in the history of the world, where there is no night or day, as a description of how a day could not be a 24 hour literal day was puzzling to me. This is an obvious example of when day is used to mean something we have absolutely no idea of what it could mean, because as your verse say's "only the Lord knows it."

Do you believe that The Day of The Lord will be a single day?

It's a bit late for me to go into a detailed response to this right now, but I'm sensing that we have differing views on the end times, and perhaps that is a reason that we are having trouble with this particular Scripture.

It's entirely up to you, and I would love to continue discussing the bankruptcy of the evolution story because it needs to be openly put to shame for all the damage it is doing to the Word of God and to our society today.

Do you think I believe in evolution? ('cause I don't).

When I'm not so tired, I'll address your last post in further detail.

[Bulldog]

But if its figurative, then man did not really fall did he?

Yes, and the story shows that. I just do not believe that how he fell is the literal story in the garden.

And at which point did hominids evolve into a human race that was in the image of God?

You'll have to ask that question to a scientist.

[Cal]

Do you believe that The Day of The Lord will be a single day?

Do you think I believe in evolution? ('cause I don't).

Phrases like the Day of the Lord and the Day of salvation do not have:

Morning and evening associated with them,
A number associated with them (first day, second day, etc), or
The word night referenced to it.

Therefore, day in these verses is not used like the Genesis account and they do not represent a literal 24 hour day.

The 513 instances in the bible where, just like in Genesis 1, day is used with either the words morning and evening, night or with a numerical reference all mean a literal 24 hour day.

Therefore, why wouldn't it mean a 24 hour literal day in Genesis 1?

I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, I assumed you did. So you don't believe God created the world in six literal days, and He didn't use evolution to create man and animals. Then, how long do you think the Lord took for creation? And why did it take Him so long ?

[Donny_B]

I believe in the literal 6-day creation, so voted yes. I also believe in all the other miracles of the Bible.

[jazzbird]

Phrases like the Day of the Lord and the Day of salvation do not have:

Morning and evening associated with them,
A number associated with them (first day, second day, etc), or
The word night referenced to it.

Therefore, day in these verses is not used like the Genesis account and they do not represent a literal 24 hour day.

The 513 instances in the bible where, just like in Genesis 1, day is used with either the words morning and evening, night or with a numerical reference all mean a literal 24 hour day.

Therefore, why wouldn't it mean a 24 hour literal day in Genesis 1?

The translation we have posted uses the words 'unique day.' Other translations say 'one day.' Either way, the original Hebrew is 'echod yowm' which is the same words used in Genesis 1 for 'one day.'

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

It is a numerical reference in Zech. It's the same as in Gen. 1.

My understanding of The Day of The Lord is that it will be a period of days - regular 24 hour days like we have now. The difference is there will be catastrophic events that cause changes in the light and dark.

You say the Day of The Lord is unlike any other time in the earth's history, but I would say the same about creation.

Yowm can be legitimately translated as a period of time. Just because the Genesis account is an uncommon occurance does not mean that a period of time cannot be an accurate translation. The Hebrew allows for it. If we look at each day as a period of time, we see the numbers as a way to divide what kind of creation took place during that time. I think it is important to remember that God's perspective is much different from our own. We look at the creation account from our own earthly point of view, yet perhaps it is written from God's point of view.

How long is a day in Genesis Chapter 1? Consider this…the Bible says a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to man (II Peter 3:8). Remember, Adam was created on the sixth day, and these “days” were as God sees days, because only God was here…not man. Man was only here at the very end of the sixth day.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter how I interpret the word day in human languages…the question is, ‘What is a day to God?’ Think about this…if you are in the middle of space, and you are the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal God of the universe, who never sleeps, then what is a “day” to you? If you are eternal, what meaning does time have for you? Wow, there goes another million years! It won’t matter because you have billions more!


I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, I assumed you did. So you don't believe God created the world in six literal days, and He didn't use evolution to create man and animals. Then, how long do you think the Lord took for creation? And why did it take Him so long ?

It seems to be a common misconception that old earth creationism and theistic evolution are synonymous, when in fact they have very little in common beyond the shared belief that the earth is very old.

Looking back at the beginning of this thread, it is a bit misleading. I based my answer on the poll question: Do you believe God created all in six literal days and the earth is < 10,000 yrs old? I said 'no' because I believe the earth is much older than that. However, at the time I did not pay much attention to the title of this thread which is "Theistic Evolution vs. Creationism." I am a creationist, but I am not a young earther, as you are. I guess technically my view would be called Progressive Creationism.

So, to give you a better perspective on where I'm coming from:


I believe God created the world over the period of several billion years in the sequence described in Genesis.
I believe that each species was created uniquely and did not evolve.
I believe that Scripture and Science are compatible.
I believe there are many observations we can make in the natural world that give proof of a Creator, and give proof that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.


Hope that helps a little.

Reference:
http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm

[jazzbird]

Also, about the grass......I just can't let the grass arguement die. ^_^ Sorry for the bad pun. Anyway....

Your scripture from James talks about the grass being burnt by the sun, however my verse from Psalms does not. It only says that the grass fades and withers in the evening. So, I still think that my interpretation is as legit as yours. I don't think it's that important, but I just gotta have the last word. :D



Cal - BTW, I shot you a pm, just wanted to make sure you got it.

[theseed]

Yes, and the story shows that. I just do not believe that how he fell is the literal story in the garden.

Well, I think that if there was a literal Christ, then their was a literal Adam, and Christ refers to Adam and Even as if it were true. As well as Jonah and other things.

If man fell another way, then why is that not in the bible?

[Bulldog]

If man fell another way, then why is that not in the bible?

It is. It's just thatit is not presented literaly.

[Cal]

The translation we have posted uses the words 'unique day.' Other translations say 'one day.' Either way, the original Hebrew is 'echod yowm' which is the same words used in Genesis 1 for 'one day.'



Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.



It is a numerical reference in Zech. It's the same as in Gen. 1.



My understanding of The Day of The Lord is that it will be a period of days - regular 24 hour days like we have now. The difference is there will be catastrophic events that cause changes in the light and dark.

You say the Day of The Lord is unlike any other time in the earth's history, but I would say the same about creation.



Yowm can be legitimately translated as a period of time. Just because the Genesis account is an uncommon occurance does not mean that a period of time cannot be an accurate translation. The Hebrew allows for it. If we look at each day as a period of time, we see the numbers as a way to divide what kind of creation took place during that time. I think it is important to remember that God's perspective is much different from our own. We look at the creation account from our own earthly point of view, yet perhaps it is written from God's point of view.



Translators have rendered the Hebrew expression yom 'echad in verse 7 into English in a variety of ways: "for it will be a unique day" (New American Standard Bible, New International Version); "and there shall be continuous day" (New Revised Standard Version); "it will be continuous day" (Revised English Bible); or "and the day shall be one." The "continuous day," or "one day," of the eschatological future will be one in which the normal rhythm of evening and morning, day and night, will change so that in that eschatological day there shall be "light even at the evening" (verse 7).

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

This is one of the most powerful Scriptures in the entire Bible which actually defines not only what a day is but what all days must do. Now when evening comes it is always dark, always has been. But here we have an evening come when it is light. This is not only not normal for what happens in the evening, this passage says that it never happened.

This passage is also referring to the Lord's return so it encompasses ALL time where when evening comes it would be dark, EXCEPT on this UNIQUE Day. The only way this could be unique is if there were NO other days ever that when evening came it would be light. So this would have to include the first six days of Creation Week (and the Seventh for that matter too). But even Genesis itself records that the evening part of the day was dark. This is astounding, because it leaves NO days throughout history from the beginning of Creation that were not days as we know them. This puts a absolute lock on young earth creation, based on Scripture, therefore, refuting old earth theology and cosmology.

GEN 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



So you believe that this unique day in Zec, where there is no day or night and has an evening when there is light is the same as the first day in Genesis where there is day and night and no light at evening? It seems like it is the exact opposite of the creation day and any day we have ever seen in the history of the Earth.



Sources: http://www.therickabys.com/sda/CreaCatasCh2g.html (http://www.therickabys.com/sda/CreaCatasCh2g.html) and: http://www.webedelic.com/church/young.htm (http://www.webedelic.com/church/young.htm)



It seems to be a common misconception that old earth creationism and theistic evolution are synonymous, when in fact they have very little in common beyond the shared belief that the earth is very old.



Looking back at the beginning of this thread, it is a bit misleading. I based my answer on the poll question: Do you believe God created all in six literal days and the earth is < 10,000 yrs old? I said 'no' because I believe the earth is much older than that. However, at the time I did not pay much attention to the title of this thread which is "Theistic Evolution vs. Creationism." I am a creationist, but I am not a young earther, as you are. I guess technically my view would be called Progressive Creationism.



So, to give you a better perspective on where I'm coming from:



I believe God created the world over the period of several billion years in the sequence described in Genesis.

I believe that each species was created uniquely and did not evolve.

I believe that Scripture and Science are compatible.

I believe there are many observations we can make in the natural world that give proof of a Creator, and give proof that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.





You’re right it was a little misleading and the arguments you used are the standard arguments for theistic evolution as well so I just assumed you were arguing for evolution.


So do you believe God took billions of years to create a man, and then after He named all the animals on Earth created Eve billions of years later? Or do you believe God took billions of years to just create a man and then after he named all the animals on Earth instantaneously created a women in one day?



Thanks for clearing everything up so well!

[Donny_B]

The geneaology of Jesus (through Mary) given in Luke chapter 3 traces His lineage from Adam and Noah.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

For those who try to accomodate evolution, what part of this geneaology is "not literal"?

[Bulldog]

The geneaology of Jesus (through Mary) given in Luke chapter 3 traces His lineage from Adam and Noah.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

For those who try to accomodate evolution, what part of this geneaology is "not literal"?

The genealogy is completly literal, because Adam did indeed exist.

Many Rabbis will tell you that Adam was the first Jewis person, and thta is why he appears in geneologies.

[Cal]

Also, about the grass......I just can't let the grass arguement die. ^_^ Sorry for the bad pun. Anyway....

Your scripture from James talks about the grass being burnt by the sun, however my verse from Psalms does not. It only says that the grass fades and withers in the evening. So, I still think that my interpretation is as legit as yours. I don't think it's that important, but I just gotta have the last word. :D



Cal - BTW, I shot you a pm, just wanted to make sure you got it.The Bible is the best translator of itself. We only mess things up. I am trying to show you why the grass in Israel fades and withers by evening. The Holy Spirit in James say's it is the sun.

Of course this just makes sense from what we know about Palestinian grass. Your first interpretation said "this never happens" but then you changed your interpretation to say "it is just not normal." Well now we know it not only happens but it is normal and a recurring event for Palestinian grass.

Therefore the word day in this verse does mean a 24 hour day:

PSA 90:6 In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away.

Thanks for responding to my pm, I got your response and you are too kind!

[Donny_B]

The genealogy is completly literal, because Adam did indeed exist.

Many Rabbis will tell you that Adam was the first Jewis person, and thta is why he appears in geneologies.
Judah (in whom the Jews get their name), a son of Jacob (Israel), came about 2200 years after Adam.

[theFijian]

Doesn't the notion of Adam comming from monkeys undo the orgin of Sin? Evolution does not state that man came from monkeys, it says that we had a common ancestor. This a (very) common misconception.

What about God being made in the image of a monkey?
What on earth do you mean?

Andy

[theseed]

Evolution does not state that man came from monkeys, it says that we had a common ancestor. This a (very) common misconception.

I know. But the common ancestor, the missing link, would have to between and ape and and a man--some ape man.

What on earth do you mean?

At what point does a hominid become what God intended to be man in his image?

[theseed]

It is. It's just thatit is not presented literaly.
How so?

[theseed]

Judah (in whom the Jews get their name), a son of Jacob (Israel), came about 2200 years after Adam.

Yes, and the word "semetic" comes from Sem or Shem one of Noah's children. Hence, both Jews and Gentiles descend from Adam. Also, Paul says that the sin entered the whole human race through one man, not just the Jewish race.

[theFijian]

I know. But the common ancestor, the missing link, would have to between and ape and and a man--some ape man.
No it wouldn't. Apes/monkeys and man would be descended from the common ancestor.

Andy

[theseed]

No it wouldn't. Apes/monkeys and man would be descended from the common ancestor.

Andy
That's not what the pictures show. :scratch:

[Holy Warrior]

If you go with the common ancestor necessitated by the evolution theory, you would have a creature that is enough of a chimpanzee to have descendants who will be recognisable as chimps, but also enough of a human to have descendants who are recognisable as humans. Hence the ape-man concept.

If theistic evolution seems right to you, then fair enough. To me it seems rather a roundabout way for God to work, but that's just my opinion. When we get to heaven, we'll find out, I'm sure :)

[theseed]

If you go with the common ancestor necessitated by the evolution theory, you would have a creature that is enough of a chimpanzee to have descendants who will be recognisable as chimps, but also enough of a human to have descendants who are recognisable as humans. Hence the ape-man concept.

If theistic evolution seems right to you, then fair enough. To me it seems rather a roundabout way for God to work, but that's just my opinion. When we get to heaven, we'll find out, I'm sure :)
Yes, because chimps and humans share 98% of genes.

[Bulldog]

At what point does a hominid become what God intended to be man in his image?

When he becomes a full human, homo sapien.

How so?

Genesis 3.

[theseed]

Genesis 3.

You are not explaining the question, but just citing a chapter. And I cite the same chapter and say it is intended to be literal. So prove how Gen. 3 is not literal.

[Bulldog]

Genesis 3 is part of the Adam and Eve story, which I do not believe to be literal. Take a look at this thread, specifically posts 5, 7, and 9:

http://christianforum.com/t115252

I'm not going to explain it all here, but Adam and Eve literally mean Dirt and Hearth-obvious symbology. They are illustrating theological points through parable like stories. Early in Genesis, God is creating was what at the time the Babylonian gods. COincide? I think not.

[Donny_B]

So all references to Adam and Eve and the creation in the Bible are to be disregarded to accomodate Darwin?

[jazzbird]

So you believe that this unique day in Zec, where there is no day or night and has an evening when there is light is the same as the first day in Genesis where there is day and night and no light at evening? It seems like it is the exact opposite of the creation day and any day we have ever seen in the history of the Earth.

No, I don't believe it is the same kind of day. I wasn't trying to equate the two as being alike in composition, meaning that what is described in Zech. is how the days were in Genesis. You say that the Day of the Lord will be unlike any other - and I agree. I was merely saying that the time of creation was also unlike any other time in history.


So do you believe God took billions of years to create a man, and then after He named all the animals on Earth created Eve billions of years later? Or do you believe God took billions of years to just create a man and then after he named all the animals on Earth instantaneously created a women in one day?


No, I don't believe He took billions of years to create a man, but I believe that the entire process of creation took that long. The sixth day begins with the creation of land animals, then man, then woman. If we think of the Lord being intimately involved in forming each of His creatures one by one, rather than thinking them into existence in a literal day, it would take quite some time before He got to man. Old earthers believe Adam was created somewhere around 50,000 years ago. As to your question about how quickly Eve was created, the Bible doesn't say, and I don't know. We know that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and during that time he removed a rib and created the woman.

The thing you brought up about naming the animals, is something that has always puzzled me about the literal 24 hour day theory....how in the world did Adam name all those thousands of animals in less than a day's time. It doesn't make rational sense. Adam was a man - not fallen, that's true - but a man, nonetheless. It would be humanely impossible for him to name all these animals. He was created toward the end of the day, and before he even named the animals he cultivated the garden. What does that leave - a couple hours for him to name them? Don't you think that the task of naming these creatures would be a joyful one and something to revel in? Think of all the interesting and amazing creatures in our world. As Adam is introduced to them, one by one, did he name them the first thing that popped into his head, or did he examine them and observe them in order to come up with the most suitable name. I imagine it would be like a game. The Bible says:

Genesis 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.

We know that God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve. They had an intimacy that we cannot know right now. In this verse I see The Lord and Adam together in the garden, observing all the animals. God says, "look at that animal in the tree, Adam....what would you like to name it?" And Adam muses and finally proclaims it's name, and God and the man continue on, enjoying the time spent together.

As far as Eve goes, Genesis 2 says that God put Adam into the Garden and God saw that he was lonely. How would Adam have time to get lonely in a single day? Especially a day when he was busy with the task of naming all of the animals? It implies that some time has gone by. His exclamation when God gives Eve to him is one of completeness. In some versions he exclaims "At last!" At last? After less than a day?

[theseed]

Bulldog you might be interested in reading this.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html

[Bulldog]

So all references to Adam and Eve and the creation in the Bible are to be disregarded to accomodate Darwin?

I certainly do not believe that. Just look at my sig.

I just do not believe ina literal Adam in a literal creation story of Genesis.

[Donny_B]

So, what parts of your signature are not literal besides Adam?

[Cal]

No, I don't believe it is the same kind of day. I wasn't trying to equate the two as being alike in composition, meaning that what is described in Zech. is how the days were in Genesis. You say that the Day of the Lord will be unlike any other - and I agree. I was merely saying that the time of creation was also unlike any other time in history.
Jazzbird,

Thank you for debating with me, I am learning so much from the points you are making. I hope we can continue debating together on this and other posts.

I also agree with the point you are making about Zech being "unique" from a 24 hour day. Evolutionists continue to bring up those same verses that you did in Psalms, Daniel, Zech and Peter claiming these "days" are not 24 hour days.

I think you have seen where Psalms, Daniel and Peter are in fact 24 hour days, or at least you must admit there is a supportable position defending how they certainly could be 24 hour days. Which leaves us only with Zech, which it appears we both believe is different than a 24 hour day, and it just makes sense because it is even translated "a unique day." So we have agreement.

But Gen 1 days are never translated "unique day's," never.That's because they are not unique, they have been the same seven day's, making up our week on Earth since creation.

So to compare the "one unique day" that prophesies the ushering in of the return of Jesus Christ, the end of time, and the end of the world as we know it to the other 2,190,000 normal days doesn't seem to be a good comparison.

Since the creation days of Gen 1 are used in Scripture in like fashion 513 additional times as 24 hour days and the plain reading of them is 24 hour day's why would anyone want to use a unique day that the bible says the Earth has never seen before and is known to no one except "the Lord" to define the creation day's or any of the other 2,190,000 24 hour days? It just seems like that would be like trying to put pantyhose on a gorilla. It just isn't going to fit.

[Cal]

No, I don't believe He took billions of years to create a man, but I believe that the entire process of creation took that long. The sixth day begins with the creation of land animals, then man, then woman. If we think of the Lord being intimately involved in forming each of His creatures one by one, rather than thinking them into existence in a literal day, it would take quite some time before He got to man. Old earthers believe Adam was created somewhere around 50,000 years ago. As to your question about how quickly Eve was created, the Bible doesn't say, and I don't know. We know that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and during that time he removed a rib and created the woman.

The thing you brought up about naming the animals, is something that has always puzzled me about the literal 24 hour day theory....how in the world did Adam name all those thousands of animals in less than a day's time. It doesn't make rational sense. Adam was a man - not fallen, that's true - but a man, nonetheless. It would be humanely impossible for him to name all these animals. He was created toward the end of the day, and before he even named the animals he cultivated the garden. What does that leave - a couple hours for him to name them? Don't you think that the task of naming these creatures would be a joyful one and something to revel in? Think of all the interesting and amazing creatures in our world. As Adam is introduced to them, one by one, did he name them the first thing that popped into his head, or did he examine them and observe them in order to come up with the most suitable name. I imagine it would be like a game. The Bible says:

Genesis 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.

We know that God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve. They had an intimacy that we cannot know right now. In this verse I see The Lord and Adam together in the garden, observing all the animals. God says, "look at that animal in the tree, Adam....what would you like to name it?" And Adam muses and finally proclaims it's name, and God and the man continue on, enjoying the time spent together.

As far as Eve goes, Genesis 2 says that God put Adam into the Garden and God saw that he was lonely. How would Adam have time to get lonely in a single day? Especially a day when he was busy with the task of naming all of the animals? It implies that some time has gone by. His exclamation when God gives Eve to him is one of completeness. In some versions he exclaims "At last!" At last? After less than a day?
Thanks again for your comments!!

Ok, so what you are proposing is maybe Eve was created thousands of years after Adam. So Adam was thousands of years older than Eve? Boy, talk about a mismatch! :confused:

But your particular criticism about Adam naming the animals ignores two very important facts: (1) Adam was much more intelligent than we can even imagine today; and (2) he did not have to name every species of animal, but only the distinct "kinds" of animals that were of immediate interest and access in his daily activities.
Adam had been created in the very "image" of the omniscient God, and that image had not yet been damaged by sin and the curse. Scientists today recognize that modern man actually uses only a very small part of his brain's potential, but Adam, with his mental capacity just then created by a purposeful, wise, loving Creator, perhaps could have used it all! He could surely have recognized, almost instantly, the distinctive qualities of each pair of animals as the different kinds passed before him, and then given them appropriate names.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20).

Note that the animals so named included only the cattle, the birds, and the field animals. Not included were the "beasts of the earth," the "creeping things" and the "fish of the sea" (Genesis 1:24, 26). Thus the vast multitudes of marine animals and insects, as well as reptiles and amphibians, were excluded. The cattle evidently were the domesticable animals (horses, sheep, cows, etc.) and the "beasts of the field" were animals that would live in the wild in the Garden of Eden and its nearby fields. The "beasts of the earth" were presumably to live throughout the earth and would only have infrequent contact with man, so were not among those to be viewed by him at this time. Nor were the "creeping things," those animals built low to the ground, which, while necessary to a functioning ecology, were not of direct, personal importance to human life. In the context, the purpose of this assignment to Adam by God was both to acquaint him with the animals likely to be associated directly with his normal activities and also to show him that, while he was to have dominion over them, none were qualified to be a "helper like him." Only a woman, also made in God's image, could qualify for this role.

Furthermore, he did not have to name all the species of even this limited number of animals, but only the kinds--which is a much broader term, possibly comparable, in many cases, to our modern taxonomic "family." Although we cannot calculate the actual number of animals involved, it was not inordinately large, and Adam, with his vast innate mental abilities, could surely have named them all in a reasonable part of one day's time.

Source: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-212.htm

[Bulldog]

So, what parts of your signature are not literal besides Adam?

I absolutly agree with my signature. I see no reason not to to take other parts of the Bible literaly. Genesis 1-5 is written with dialects from differemt time periods, and most likely by different authors. It shoiws God creating the Babylonian gods of the time, to go aganst the Babylonian polytheistic religion. Adam and Eve literaly mean dirt and hearth.

You see? There are reasons that I take Genesis 1-5 symbolically.

[Donny_B]

It shoiws God creating the Babylonian gods of the time, to go aganst the Babylonian polytheistic religion.So, you are polytheistic? Is this allowed in the Christian-only section of the forum?

[Bulldog]

So, you are polytheistic? Is this allowed in the Christian-only section of the forum?

I think you misunderstood my post. I am monotheistic.

The Babylonian religion was polytheistic.

In Genesis, their gods are showsn to be created by God, rather than be gods themselves, so the mesege was against The Babylonian polytheistic religion.

[jazzbird]

Which leaves us only with Zech, which it appears we both believe is different than a 24 hour day, and it just makes sense because it is even translated "a unique day." So we have agreement.
For clarification sake, can I ask how long you believe this day to be? I saw in another thread that you were referencing Sproul regarding end times. Are you a partial preterist? I believe this day will last about 3 1/2 years, so that is a considerable length of time. I believe that this day is comprised of many 24 hour days. This is why I relate it the Genesis. I see them both as a lengthy period of time that is referred to in Scripture as a day.

But Gen 1 days are never translated "unique day's," never.That's because they are not unique, they have been the same seven day's, making up our week on Earth since creation.
I don't think that it is important whether creation is referred to in the Bible as "unique." There is no rule in Hebrew that says yowm can't be a period of time and I think there are a lot of other considerations that need to be taken into account. If I didn't believe there was substantial evidence, I wouldn't consider the old earth view based on the definition of 'yowm.' But I feel that there is a lot of evidence that warrants consideration, and this all fits with the Bible if one is willing to consider the possibility that the translation is in fact a period of time and not a series of 24 hour days.

So often I refer only to Gen 1 for the documentation of creation. As I was reading Gen 2 I noticed that 2:4 says This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

From my stance I have no problem reconciling the use of a single "day" of creation since my view allows for a period of time, but I was just curious why you think it might be stated this way, and how you would deal with that verse from a young earth perspective.

Since the creation days of Gen 1 are used in Scripture in like fashion 513 additional times as 24 hour days and the plain reading of them is 24 hour day's why would anyone want to use a unique day that the bible says the Earth has never seen before and is known to no one except "the Lord" to define the creation day's or any of the other 2,190,000 24 hour days? It just seems like that would be like trying to put pantyhose on a gorilla. It just isn't going to fit.
I think I addressed this above, but I'll try to clarify a bit more. You seem to be dwelling a lot on the translation "unique," and while I think that word is very appropriate for the text, it also seems to be a distraction here. The importance of this verse pertaining to our discussion is that it is a period of time that is referred to as a day. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as we're not really getting anywhere. I believe that it is a valid interpretation.

[Cal]

For clarification sake, can I ask how long you believe this day to be? I saw in another thread that you were referencing Sproul regarding end times. Are you a partial preterist? I believe this day will last about 3 1/2 years, so that is a considerable length of time. I believe that this day is comprised of many 24 hour days. This is why I relate it the Genesis. I see them both as a lengthy period of time that is referred to in Scripture as a day.Yes I am a partial preterist and many partial preterist's see these verses as fulfilled at the first coming of Christ. But I gotta tell ya, I'm not so sure. Eschatology is a tough thing, a lot of symbolism, types and hidden meanings that are not always very clear. I'm not sure how long this "unique" day is but it sure sounds very mysterious and.............well.........very unique.

I think it is a mistake to compare this mysteriously unique day with any other day the Earth has ever seen. In addition, I think it is a mistake to think that because there is a unique mysterious day referred to in Scripture that there are many mysteriously unique day's. Because to do so takes the "unique" out of "unique."

I don't think that it is important whether creation is referred to in the Bible as "unique." There is no rule in Hebrew that says yowm can't be a period of time and I think there are a lot of other considerations that need to be taken into account. If I didn't believe there was substantial evidence, I wouldn't consider the old earth view based on the definition of 'yowm.' But I feel that there is a lot of evidence that warrants consideration, and this all fits with the Bible if one is willing to consider the possibility that the translation is in fact a period of time and not a series of 24 hour days.But it is important, what the bible say's and intends is very very important.

The Bible is the revelation of God and it is the most important evidence we have as a source of knowledge. The reason the Scriptures don't refer to the creation day's as unique is because they are not unique. They are ordinary days. Why would you want to try to make them unique?

The reason the Zech verse is referred to in Scripture as "unique" is because it is unique. Unique is not ordinary because it is unique. Unique is referred to as unique because it is out of the ordinary. Why would you want to make this unique day ordinary?

Also, if you don't mind I would like to see this "substantial evidence" you have in the next post, I mean if it's not too much trouble. Because there are hundreds of PhD's in science who see absolutely no evidence for an old Earth at all. Now I know there are numerous atheist scientists with PhD's that refute this but I think it is their biased atheistic worldview that is producing this biased conclusion. By the way speaking of atheist old earth scientists, does it bother you at all to be siding with millions of atheists who also hold to an old earth? Please pardon me here to be so bold to ask but I think this should be some kinda warning signal for you.

So often I refer only to Gen 1 for the documentation of creation. As I was reading Gen 2 I noticed that 2:4 says This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

From my stance I have no problem reconciling the use of a single "day" of creation since my view allows for a period of time, but I was just curious why you think it might be stated this way, and how you would deal with that verse from a young earth perspective. You bring up a perfect example of how day can be used without morning and evening, without a number attached and without the word night. And the reason your verse is so appropriate is because it shows the difference clearly on how a specific 24 hour day is used and how a general period of time is used all in the same place.

Immediately preceeding your verse are these verses:

GEN 1: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

GEN 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.

GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

GEN 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

GEN 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

GEN 1:31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


Now your verse:

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,

You see the contrast? The Holy Spirit is revealing how the Earth was made in specific 24 hour days, and then He refers to them all as the day of creation or the time of creation. He could have and would have used this general period of time wording in all the preceeding verses if they were periods of time instead of 24 hour days but He chose not to.

Why?

Same Holy Spirit, written on the exact same day (no pun intended), referencing the exact same event, and written by the exact same person Moses. You really bring out a very good point here.


I think I addressed this above, but I'll try to clarify a bit more. You seem to be dwelling a lot on the translation "unique," and while I think that word is very appropriate for the text, it also seems to be a distraction here. The importance of this verse pertaining to our discussion is that it is a period of time that is referred to as a day. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as we're not really getting anywhere. I believe that it is a valid interpretation. I believe "unique" is a very valid translation as well. And I don't want to discount this translation. What I want to do is compare how day is referred to in one place of Scripture to another place in Scripture in order to let Scripture be the interpretor, not you and me.

So let's see how they compare:

Your verse:

ZEC 14:7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

Creation verses:

GEN 1: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

GEN 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.

GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

GEN 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

GEN 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

GEN 1:31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


I just don't see any comparison whatsoever, the two simply must be a different.

[rmwilliamsll]

i read a lot on the creation-evolution-design issue, and have been deeply involved in the debate for nearly 2 years now. this is my blog posting on the subject today:


Perhaps one of the best CED discussions i am aware of on the net is via the asa listserv.



they are public archives, and 3 people are talking here, making it difficult to impossible to ask permission of each to repost and discuss here.
so i just removed personal info or identifiers.

>>> >You and I probably agree (along with many others) that there already are
>>> >adequate arguments for accepting evolution that take the Bible and the
>>> >Christian theological tradition seriously. I think it will take some
>>> >one with a very high profile in the religious limelight to make any
>>> >headway quickly. If someone with the clout of a Billy Graham (and there
>>> >doesn't seem to be anybody of his stature to take his place right now)
>>> >would make a point of supporting evolution, things could change
>>> >substantially. But if evolution acceptance has to go pulpit by
>>> >pulpit,church by church, it is going to be a long haul I am afraid.
>>> >The support that the pope has given has not even made much of a dent in
>>> >the general public of the US as far as I can tell. But maybe an
>>> >evangelical "celebrity" might make a difference.
>
>>
>> Is it really necessary that everyone accepts the view that God created
>> using evolution? If so, it gets us in a quagmire of discussions about
>> Bible interpretation. Someone without higher education would benefit very
>> little of the discussion, and those of us who want to show how "evolution"
>> does not contradict our high view of Biblical Truth would forever be busy
>> discussing things while we will be not able to convince those who have not
>> had a thorough scientific education, enforced by a studying of reformed
>> (Calvinistic) philosophy. I tried, but I was unable to do so, though I am
>> still accepted as a good reformed Calvinist, thanks to a discussion led by
>> someone else in our church. But, all those who did not study science
>> and/or philosophy still don't believe that what I say is correct.
>> We all believe, that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Let that be
>> enough. Teaching "evolution" to non-scientists is practically impossible,
>> I think.
This would be fine if anti-evolutionists would agree that evolution
is not a church-dividing issue, that rejection of it is not necessary for
salvation, and - most importantly - if they would stop going on crusades
against evolution. But they don't. As I pointed out in the letter I
included in my post, they make Christianity look stupid to nonbelievers &,
in addition, are responsible for the loss of faith of some Christians when
they discover what the world is really like. ... In addition, opposition to evolution & YEC views tie in
with ideas about the environment which can have serious practical
consequences.

the thread begins with: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200405/0110.html
this particular message is archived at: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200405/0134.html
this is basically the root/faq entry point: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/


I don't think i have seen a more stark, more poignant note on either the necessity of teaching the church about the relationship of our theology to the science of evolutionary theory, nor the sadness and maybe impossibility of persuading the 'man in the pew' next to us each Sunday of it.
The issue is going to be a big deal at GA for the PCA this June (i believe, i don't have evidence to show it), via subscriptionism to the 6 day creation week in the confession. AiG is apparently going to push the 'refuting compromise' book and make the whole thing into a major push in the evangelical churches. Then it is a big election year in the US, and the country is at war, an expensive and by all appearences another potentially losing war. All of which is going to raise the temperature of the political conversation and make positions harder and less able to compromise and even careful listening. Making it a long hot summer.

[jazzbird]

Ok, so what you are proposing is maybe Eve was created thousands of years after Adam. So Adam was thousands of years older than Eve? Boy, talk about a mismatch! :confused:
^_^ Nooo.....not thousands of years! Maybe it was a month, maybe a year, maybe ten years.....I don't know, but a thousand years is a bit extreme. If he was going to get lonely, it would be a lot sooner than that. The point is that the text seems to imply that some amount of time went by before Eve was created. Adam was given a lot of work to do. He was to cultivate the garden, name the animals and care for them, and he also had the company of God. So, he had plearureable work and fellowship