Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Geoffrey wrote:Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:The only way I see to save "inerrancy" with Genesis, is to look at vast parts, either allegorically or symbolically. Otherwise, we need to run with infallibility.
I think that Genesis, understood as inerrant and interpreted literally, is 100% compatible with an old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind.
Can you elaborate a bit and give some simple examples
Or point me to some links, that looks at an "inerrant " Genesis, along with an "old earth, a local flood, and biological evolution of all species except for mankind." I'm always eager to learn.
[email protected] wrote:My proposed statement of faith does not engage in the creation evolution debate because it is intentionally brief. However, I myself hold to a non-evolutionary creationist view. Two quick thoughts...
1) Here is an interesting interview with Richard Dawkins. For those that truly understand God's design in the information stored in DNA this interview exposes a fatal flaw in the science of evolution, http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped ... uted-again. The interview is hotly debated because Dawkins is knocked off his feet with the simple question.
2) For myself the deal breaker for evolution is not scientific as much as it is historical / theological. Romans 5:12 makes it plain that sin first entered the world, followed by death. This is a critical observation to conclude that death was not a beginning or end game for our God of life, but a temporal fact in the middle. Universalists ought to especially appreciate this fact. Thus, millions of years of death and evolution leading to the first man is not possible.
Genesis 1 makes it clear that the days are not 24 hours long.
Paidion wrote:I've never heard of the word "day" used in a figurative sense in which it had an evening and a morning.
davo wrote:Paidion wrote:I've never heard of the word "day" used in a figurative sense in which it had an evening and a morning.
Have you considered the biblical expression “the DAY of the Lord” where this speaks to a period of divine judgment… this would constitute a “figurative sense” or usage of that word, and thus fully inclusive of numerous days containing “evening and a morning”.
Most people associate the day of the Lord with a period of time or a special day that will occur when God’s will and purpose for His world and for mankind will be fulfilled. Some scholars believe that the day of the Lord will be a longer period of time than a single day—a period of time when Christ will reign throughout the world before He cleanses heaven and earth in preparation for the eternal state of all mankind. Other scholars believe the day of the Lord will be an instantaneous event when Christ returns to earth to redeem His faithful believers and send unbelievers to eternal damnation.
Paidion wrote:Genesis 1 makes it clear that the days are not 24 hours long.
Hmmmm... Not too clear, in my opinion. I've never heard of the word "day" used in a figurative sense in which it had an evening and a morning.
For example, we might speak of the "day" in which Shakespeare lived. But have you ever heard of the evening in which Shakespeare lived? Or the morning?
Hi Davo, you wrote:Have you considered the biblical expression “the DAY of the Lord” where this speaks to a period of divine judgment…
this would constitute a “figurative sense” or usage of that word, and thus fully inclusive of numerous days containing “evening and a morning”.
Geoffrey wrote:Yes. I've heard of people being in the sunset of their lives. I've also heard of laws being "sunsetted". I've heard of the 11th and 12th centuries referred to as the morning of the Middle Ages. Etc. "Morning" and "sunrise" are utterly appropriate for beginnings, and "evening" and "sunset" are equally appropriate for endings. Genesis is simply saying, "This period had a beginning, and it had an end."
Paidion wrote:…but is an evening and a morning of the Day of the Lord itself ever mentioned in the Bible?
Paidion wrote:On the other hand, concerning the 6 days of creation, an evening and and a morning of every one of them is mentioned.
davo wrote:Paidion wrote:…but is an evening and a morning of the Day of the Lord itself ever mentioned in the Bible?
Not to my knowledge (Zech 14:1, 7 is interesting). Such a Day was an event so I suppose an evening and morning would simply be assumed, given they book-end said day. And of course if such was considered would no doubt be understood within the same “figurative” parameters.Paidion wrote:On the other hand, concerning the 6 days of creation, an evening and and a morning of every one of them is mentioned.
The use of this for me would simply be natural “accommodative language”.
I tend to view the Creation account of Adam as a personification in story-like language as the story of Israel, i.e., Adam is Israel, or proto-Israel. IOW… this is the story in micro / macro form of Israel, and in particular here, the birth or origins of Israel reflected in the Adam account etc.
In a similar vein I think this bears some consideration…
maintenanceman wrote:Though I do think the division between chapters one and two can be seen as the creation and the creation of Israel, thus this also opens the door for old earth and all the possibilities that come with that.
davo wrote:maintenanceman wrote:Though I do think the division between chapters one and two can be seen as the creation and the creation of Israel, thus this also opens the door for old earth and all the possibilities that come with that.
I firmly believe in an old earth but I’m nowhere convinced of biological evolution. But that said, I tend to see both accounts as differing aspects of the same thing, i.e., Israel’s story.
LLC wrote:I really don't know what is meant by the "evening and the morning" of each creation "day", but I can't see how it would be in reference to the beginning and ending of a certain time period as suggested. I can understand for example that plant life would come before animal life, however, generally speaking, these "days" have not ended yet as the creation is still going on.
Geoffrey wrote:LLC wrote:I really don't know what is meant by the "evening and the morning" of each creation "day", but I can't see how it would be in reference to the beginning and ending of a certain time period as suggested. I can understand for example that plant life would come before animal life, however, generally speaking, these "days" have not ended yet as the creation is still going on.
"Morning" is naturally descriptive of a beginning, and "evening" is naturally descriptive of an ending.
My understanding is that we are still partially within the seventh day. Note that evening and morning are not mentioned in its regard. Jesus Christ's resurrection inaugurates the eighth day, which shall be fully realized at the Second Coming.
That the Hebrew word for "day," yom, can mean a period of time other than 24 hours is abundantly evident. In Genesis 2:4 we read, "In the day that the Lord god made the earth and heavens..." (RSV). "Day" here refers to all the creations days, what ever we believe about their length. In fact, any student of Scripture can find at least nine meanings of yom. (Perhaps the easiest way is to use a computerized word search.) While it does most often refer to a 24-hour period, it is also used to mean time, today, forever, continually, an age, a life span, and perpetuity.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to acceptance of the six creation days as long epochs is the "evening and morning" refrain framing each day's creation events. In fact, I have often seen it argued in creationist literature that this expression seals the case for a 24-hour interpretation. But the argument simply does not hold, and the basis for my statement is the Bible itself, not some obscure linguistic reference.
"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way. In Daniel 8 we read the account of Daniel's ram and goat vision and the interpretation given by Gabriel. The vision covers many years; some commentators believe the time has not yet been completed. Daniel 8:26 says, "The vision of the evenings and the mornings that have been given to you is true, but seal up the vision for it concerns the distant future" (RSV). In Hebrew manuscripts, "the evenings and mornings," is not in the plural but in the singular, identical to the expression we find in Genesis 1. Translated literally, the verse would red, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that has been given you" Here we have a clear indication from scriptural usage that this phrase does not demand a 24-hour-day interpretation and can refer to an indefinite epoch.
One might raise the objection that during the many years between the writing of Genesis and the writing of Daniel, the Hebrew usage could have changed, making the extrapolation from Daniel back to Genesis questionable. My response to such a challenge would be to underscore the stability of the ancient languages (perhaps due to the lack of general literacy and the rigorous professional training of those who served as scribes.) I see no way to escape this example of flexibility usage.
The method and length of time God used to create the heavens and the earth and life cannot be stated with absolute certainty from science, but these are matters for scientific inquiry, not for dogma. If only I could remove from those Christians who struggle with it the sense of threat they feel when presented with the possibility of long days and an old earth. I know it is linked with their supposition that to accept the fossil record and its time scale is to concede the case for a radically materialistic worldview, i.e., nontheistic evolution. But this supposition is false. In fact, if Christians would cease to attack paleontologists and biologists (among others), the researchers themselves would be free to raise more questions about the validity of their theories rather than combining forces to fend off Christian attacks. Let's not interfere with the investigative process. We Christians have everything to gain and nothing to lose from the advance of scientific discovery. For the God who speaks to us through His works of creation is the same God who speaks to us in the words of the Bible.
Eusebius wrote:When I think of all the time (100 years), blood, sweat and tears Noah must have put into building that massive ark, I find it hard to believe in a local flood. For instance, the Mesopotamian valley is approximately 500 miles long by roughly 250 miles wide. All Noah would have had to do would be to gently walk all the animals out of that valley to safety in about a week or so.
Furthermore, to the east are the mountains and to the west the plains. Imagine the waters going above the mountains to the east. What held the waters to the west? Did God build a magic wall to hem in all the waters at the same height as they were to the east? No.
[email protected] wrote:Highly unlikely that the ark could house the world population in Noah's day!
Eusebius wrote:Furthermore, to the east are the mountains and to the west the plains. Imagine the waters going above the mountains to the east. What held the waters to the west? Did God build a magic wall to hem in all the waters at the same height as they were to the east? No.
Also, people ask: "Where did all the water come from to go above Mt. Everest and where did it all go after it went above Mt. Everest?" To which I reply: "Who said Mt. Everest was even around back them. If it was, it surely was not as high back then as it is today."
Why?
Randy wrote:"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way.
Paidion wrote:Randy wrote:"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way.
There is clear evidence that "evening and morning" is literal.
Psalms 55:17 Evening and morning and at noon I will pray, and cry aloud, And He shall hear my voice.
Throughout Hebrew and Jewish history, the literal day began at sundown and ended just before sundown 24 hours later.
Why Jewish holidays begin at nightfall
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Paidion wrote:Randy wrote:"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way.
There is clear evidence that "evening and morning" is literal.
Psalms 55:17 Evening and morning and at noon I will pray, and cry aloud, And He shall hear my voice.
Throughout Hebrew and Jewish history, the literal day began at sundown and ended just before sundown 24 hours later.
Why Jewish holidays begin at nightfall
If Jewish holidays begin at nightfall, but "evening and morning" at How Long an Evening and a Morning{1}l is an idiomatic expression in ancient Semitic languages (i.e. Hebrew), how do we know whether the phase is used literally or idiomatically - in Genesis? How do we know which scholars are correct?
davo wrote:Eusebius wrote:Furthermore, to the east are the mountains and to the west the plains. Imagine the waters going above the mountains to the east. What held the waters to the west? Did God build a magic wall to hem in all the waters at the same height as they were to the east? No.
Also, people ask: "Where did all the water come from to go above Mt. Everest and where did it all go after it went above Mt. Everest?" To which I reply: "Who said Mt. Everest was even around back them. If it was, it surely was not as high back then as it is today."
Isn’t your “Mt. Everest” rationale just a tad convenient WHEN you excuse away with a “magic wall” the possibility of something in-kind in terms of geological formation holding the said waters of a ‘local flood’? Consistency??
davo wrote:
As embarrassing as it is (IMO) Ken Ham’s ‘Answer in Genesis’ was an Australian creation. I remember as a young teenager in the early 70’s attending one of his ‘creation-science’ seminars, which at the time were all the rage in evangelical circles. After his first couple of forays into the US he twigged pretty smartly as to where the lucrative market lay and has been there ever since.
Eusebius wrote:In Genesis, one light and one dark cycle is a day. There were seven light and dark cycles to a week. Day 1 is a solar day. Day 2 is a solar day etc. In other words, it is defined by one rotation of the earth. So, beginning at evening, lasting through the night, going through the duration of daylight until the next evening was considered a day. It was not considered an age.
[email protected] wrote:Highly unlikely that the ark could house the world population in Noah's day!
However, just because the ark couldn't house all doesn't mean there wasn't opportunity to repent and be saved. The world could have repented as did Nineveh to Jonah's preaching and maybe it would have been a different story. Or they could have built their own arks had they believed with holy reverence as did Noah.
The point is not about Ken Ham and his business practices. My point was the SIZE of Noah's Ark and if you were living in Noah's day and saw that ark, don't you think the word would spread all over Pangea?
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Eusebius wrote:In Genesis, one light and one dark cycle is a day. There were seven light and dark cycles to a week. Day 1 is a solar day. Day 2 is a solar day etc. In other words, it is defined by one rotation of the earth. So, beginning at evening, lasting through the night, going through the duration of daylight until the next evening was considered a day. It was not considered an age.
The scholarly article in Science and God at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours (for example) - begs to differ.
And even if scholars could reach a consensus, there's still the problem of Genesis and modern science, along with inerrancy and infallibility - in regards to understanding Genesis.
Eusebius wrote:Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Eusebius wrote:In Genesis, one light and one dark cycle is a day. There were seven light and dark cycles to a week. Day 1 is a solar day. Day 2 is a solar day etc. In other words, it is defined by one rotation of the earth. So, beginning at evening, lasting through the night, going through the duration of daylight until the next evening was considered a day. It was not considered an age.
The scholarly article in Science and God at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours (for example) - begs to differ.
And even if scholars could reach a consensus, there's still the problem of Genesis and modern science, along with inerrancy and infallibility - in regards to understanding Genesis.
How many hours are "from evening to morning" to "evening to morning" to "evening to morning" to "evening to morning" ect.?
In other words, if you go from one evening to the beginning of the next evening, that is one solar cycle, it is not?
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
Some questions for you:Did you read The scholarly article in Science and God at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours ? What is your reaction to the article? Especially, how the relate the different days of the creation story and a 24-hour period?
Where do you stand on modern science and their evidence of the big bang, old earth, Carbon-14 dating, evolution, etc?
Where do you stand on biblical inerrancy and infallibility?
"If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?"-- Rumi
"24-hours days - Day 1 Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.3 The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day."
Eusebius wrote:Hi HFPZ,
Well I re-visited the link you provided (thank you for that) re: days in the Genesis account.
Here is something they wrote:"24-hours days - Day 1 Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.3 The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day."
Of course I disagree with their idea above that God created the universe, including the earth on the first day. Genesis doesn't say such.
I am of the persuasion that the spirit of God creating a vibrational frequency over the waters separated the waters and also the creation of light is the summation of what God did on the first day of making the earth habitable again. Remember, God did not created the earth a chaos. Therefore the creation of the heavens and earth and becoming a chaos etc. did not occur on day one.
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Yes. They feel some things were done in 24 hours, on a particular day. And some "days" in Genesis, would take more than '24 hours", to accomplish everything the text said. And they didn't bring in science, to explain the text - like they said.
Everyone will have their own spin on different Biblical texts. Either here on this forum, or in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
So those on this forum, that are good at arguments and academic style presentations, can really put forth any biblical viewpoint - and defend it. All via Sola Scriptura. Same thing is true in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
Eusebius wrote:Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Yes. They feel some things were done in 24 hours, on a particular day. And some "days" in Genesis, would take more than '24 hours", to accomplish everything the text said. And they didn't bring in science, to explain the text - like they said.
Everyone will have their own spin on different Biblical texts. Either here on this forum, or in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
So those on this forum, that are good at arguments and academic style presentations, can really put forth any biblical viewpoint - and defend it. All via Sola Scriptura. Same thing is true in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
Yes, this is why I like to just share my understandings. If folks don't see things the way I do, at least we can be respectful of opposing ideas.
Geoffrey wrote:
The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961) muddied the waters by positing readings of the Scripture that are anything but plain and literal. They were in part inspired by the Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price, who tried to give scientific foundations to some of the purported visions of his prophetess, Ellen G. White (who died in 1915). Modern young earth creationism is an unusual outgrowth of Mrs. White's trances.
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Just to be clear on a point. I think you will find that the modern day Seventh Day Adventist Church (and its members), tend to distance themselves, from the visions and prophesies of Ellen G. White.
Geoffrey wrote:Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Just to be clear on a point. I think you will find that the modern day Seventh Day Adventist Church (and its members), tend to distance themselves, from the visions and prophesies of Ellen G. White.
While it is indeed true that many contemporary Seventh-Day Adventists distance themselves from Mrs. White's visions, George McCready Price (1870-1963) did not. Here is a major writing of Mrs. White's about the Flood:
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pp/pp8.html
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote: I have read that a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, can't marry someone from the Seventh Day Adventist church - in the Seventh Day Adventist Church (is this correct, Geoffrey?).