|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 12:13:45 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
I'm going to see if I can enumerate all the main views of the Biblical text and Creation. To my knowledge, every one of these views is held by Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I would like for everyone, before commenting further in the thread, to go down the list and briefly summarize how you see each view.
* Calendar Day. Each day in Genesis 1 represents a 24-hour period, and they must be consecutive. They extend from the initial creation of the universe to the formation of man, and therefore the universe cannot be more than about 10,000 years old (possibly 100,000 if the genealogies have gaps, but no calendar day enthusiasts I know of believe that).
* Day Age. Each day in Genesis 1 represents a long period of earth's history when some feature of the earth was developed.
* Gap Theory. There was a gap of indefinite length between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The Creation week then follows in 6 consecutive 24-hour days.
* The Framework View. Consists of two "triads" of days, where days 1-3 focus on the "kingdoms" (light, water, land) and days 4-6 focus on their respective "kings" (heavenly bodies, sea animals, men). Takes no position on the age of the earth.
* Analogical View. The 6 days are represented in God's time and are presented as such to give a pattern for our workweek. Takes no position on the age of the earth.
* Israel-Centric. The creation days somehow speak of God's preparation of Israel. Takes no position on the age of the earth.
* Intermittent Day. The days were calendar days, but not consecutive. Any amount of time could elapse between each one.
* Fiat Day. The 6 days represented 6 24-hour periods of time, which could possibly have been consecutive but not necessarily, where God spoke His creative acts, which were then accomplished.
* Days of Revelation. The 6 days represent 6 consecutive days in which God told the Creation story to Moses.
So, what do you think? What are the strengths/weaknesses of the various views?
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 12:29:31 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
My comments:
Calendar day -- This is what I believed until a few years ago. I now believe it has consistency problems within Scripture itself, when you consider not only Genesis but also Creation accounts in Job, Psalms, and the Prophets. Also if it has merit one wonders when the scientific evidence will start catching up. Certainly it must at some point.
Day age -- my current view. Takes the Bible seriously yet is not at odds with geological and astronomical evidence for the antiquity of the universe. It *is* at odds with Darwinian evolution, a position I vehemently reject.
Gap -- Unnecessary in my view due to how well the day age view fits the evidence. Also doesn't make a great deal of sense in general. Things would have to be created twice.
Framework -- interesting, to say the least. Its proponents insist that their position is based solely on textual interpretation and has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It is a bit complex and I'm not convinced it's necessary or warranted.
Analogical -- certainly has merit, and I see it as complimentary to day-age. There are clear 7-day patterns throughout the Pentateuch, such as 7 years for land use cycles.
Israel centric -- I've never really understood that one. If anyone understands it and can post a concise summary, I'd be grateful.
Intermittent day -- one way of seeing things that I have no real problem with. You'll notice the articles in the Hebrew say "there was evening and there was morning, A nth day." *NOT* "THE nth day."
Fiat day -- I also think this one has some real strengths. The primary verbage of Genesis 1 is God speaking and things are accomplished. I don't think the text demands that they are accomplished on the same day. It should satisfy those who hang on to the calendar day view only because they believe the day MUST be 24-hours, yet allow for an old earth.
Days of revelation -- doesn't really seem to fit the text.
*****
Anyway, there you have it. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the Calendar Day view is one narrow interpretation in the broader scheme of things. These other views are not heresies; they take God's Word seriously. There are alternative views to the Calendar Day view for those who think the text demands 24-hour days but are increasingly uncomfortable with the whole young earth idea.
Did I miss any views?
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 12:37:02 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
Repeating what I stated on the other thread, the generations from Adam to Christ are recorded in the Gospel of Luke, and Paul clearly states in several places that Adam was the first man, by which sin entered the world. The Lord Himself states that man and woman were created "in the beginning". The great faith chapter of Hebrews directly connects the Creation with the acts of the patriarchs. How anyone can force fit vast imaginary ages into any of that is beyond me.
When God destroys the present heavens and earth and creates anew, will the saints and angels sit idly by for "millions of years" while God gets things cranked back up? I think not. This is the infinite God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 12:43:59 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
geological and astronomical evidence
This is the key issue. Radiometric dating of rocks relies on several assumptions about the past which cannot possibly be verified, and the speed of light is a measure of distance, not time, that's what Einstein showed.
God created the earth FIRST, then created the heavens and supernaturally "stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and marshaled their starry host" in a moment, in a truly mind boggling display of power. Who can say exactly what potential radiation effects the earth may have been subjected to? I believe God, not man. Man was not there.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 1:04:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4634
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
* Calendar Day. Each day in Genesis 1 represents a 24-hour period, and they must be consecutive. They extend from the initial creation of the universe to the formation of man, and therefore the universe cannot be more than about 10,000 years old (possibly 100,000 if the genealogies have gaps, but no calendar day enthusiasts I know of believe that). The grammatical construction of the Hebrew text of all Genesis demonstrates that it is written in historical narrative prose. The text says what it says - certain specific entities were created by God on six specific days. These days would have appeared to an observer on Earth to be evening and morning of six consecutive 24-hour periods of time. There is no more clear way for Moses to have been inspired to write this fact.
However, relative to observable time from extra-terrestrial perspectives, we cannot be sure of the duration of creation. It's my understanding that several new theories of universe expansion have considered mathematical solutions to distant starlight from a "literal" YEC framework, and they are looking very promising.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 1:31:36 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
Hi, can you go through the list and write a brief thought on all the views before continuing? Same to you DrMark. I think it would show that you at least paid a tad bit of attention to what all the views actually teach.
quote:
ORIGINAL: yzf-r1
Repeating what I stated on the other thread, the generations from Adam to Christ are recorded in the Gospel of Luke, and Paul clearly states in several places that Adam was the first man, by which sin entered the world. The Lord Himself states that man and woman were created "in the beginning". The great faith chapter of Hebrews directly connects the Creation with the acts of the patriarchs.
I don't think any of the views I presented would dispute any of that.
quote:
How anyone can force fit vast imaginary ages into any of that is beyond me.
Who says anything about "force" fitting?
quote:
When God destroys the present heavens and earth and creates anew, will the saints and angels sit idly by for "millions of years" while God gets things cranked back up? I think not. This is the infinite God.
Irrelevant. The timescale of Creation has no bearing on the timescale of the New Creation. Of course, that will be in a different timeline anyway, so who knows.
quote:
God created the earth FIRST, then created the heavens and supernaturally "stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and marshaled their starry host" in a moment, in a truly mind boggling display of power. Who can say exactly what potential radiation effects the earth may have been subjected to? I believe God, not man. Man was not there.
How do you know God created the earth FIRST? The first verse says that the heavens and earth were created "in the beginning."
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 1:35:36 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The grammatical construction of the Hebrew text of all Genesis demonstrates that it is written in historical narrative prose. The text says what it says - certain specific entities were created by God on six specific days. These days would have appeared to an observer on Earth to be evening and morning of six consecutive 24-hour periods of time. There is no more clear way for Moses to have been inspired to write this fact.
Certainly it looks like that at first glance. But when you dig deeper, is that the only thing it could possibly mean? Clearly there is no historic consensus on this.
quote:
However, relative to observable time from extra-terrestrial perspectives, we cannot be sure of the duration of creation. It's my understanding that several new theories of universe expansion have considered mathematical solutions to distant starlight from a "literal" YEC framework, and they are looking very promising.
I assume you're referring to Humphrey's Starlight and Time. I've seen a VERY technical rebuttal of that from Ross and others. Admittedly it is way over my head. Can you name one physicist who has even given it serious consideration who was not already pre-disposed to a young earth?
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 1:37:00 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
As I said in the OP, I think it would be good if every participant in this thread gives at least a brief thought on each one of the views. I would request moderator enforcement of this if appropriate and agreeable to the moderator.
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 2:31:56 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PolarBear
How do you know God created the earth FIRST? The first verse says that the heavens and earth were created "in the beginning."
Keep reading. It's clear in Genesis 1 that the earth was formed on days 2-4.
As far as the Creation of the new heavens and new earth, yes, I agree we don't know for certain if the time frame of the new creation will be the same, but it's clear it won't be vast imaginary eons. Everything about God's supernatural activity recorded in the scriptures (including what is predicted for the Rapture of the Church and Tribulation) makes it clear it is SUDDEN, it is POWERFUL, and leaves you no question of Who God Is, as the Infinite, Eternal Creator, with His unlimited ability to intervene in the natural world/natural laws. God will "make a short work upon the earth" as predicted in the prophets, and "men will die like flies". The danger of trying to marry whimiscal human understanding of origins (which isn't even true science) with God's account of origins is that man consistently gets it wrong, even with real time phenomenon, let alone supernatural events of the past, which were not observed and cannot be analyzed.
Also, with all due respect, I don't have time for categories, God's Word is what it is. You either believe it, or you don't, it's just that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 3:02:09 PM
|
|
|
Credo_ut_Intelligam
Posts: 265
Joined: 3/8/2008
Status: offline
|
As I've said elsewhere, anyone who trys to sell me the idea that they came to an non-"Calendar day" (as you call it) view of Genesis strictly from Scripture is kidding themselves. No one in the history of the Christian church or in the history of Judaism read or exegeted the days of Genesis as being anything other than a short time period. (Some thought it was instantaneous, such as Augustine, for philosophical reasons).
Of course, after years of "undeniable evidence" that the earth is billions of years old, all the sudden Christians discover that this is what the Bible teaches too! Convenient, isn't it?
It seems obvious, to me at least, that such persons are having their hermeneutic driven by extra-biblical data. If that's what they want to do, then that's fine. I just wish they would be up-front about it. Why don't they just admit that they are making Scripture fit with the data of geology or comsology rather than the other way around?
The other day I was listening to a lecture by a prominent scholar of Islam and he mentioned that there is a small feminist group in America of Muslims who want to read the Qu'ran with feminist hermeneutics. So they take passages that say something like "women should only receive half an inheritance" and try to reinterpret that so that Allah is really treating the women equally.
Honestly, everyone in the audience laughed at that when they heard it. They aren't stupid. They can see exactly what the feminists are doing and they are wondering the same thing I am: why don't they just admit that the Qu'ran needs to be disregarded here? Why the gymnastics?
It really doesn't bother me when Christians or Muslims do it. I agree that many of the views listed (Framework, day-age, etc.) are not heretical. I just want two things: I want them to be honest about what's driving their hermeneutic and I want them to be consistent.
So for example, don't tell me about the undeniable evidence that the earth is old and then tell me that you think evolution is ridiculous... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I think any (evolutionary) scientist will tell you that the evidence in favor of evolution is just as strong, if not stronger, in favor of evolution as it is in favor of an old earth. Or don't tell me that your hermeneutic is being entirely (or even primarily) driven by the Scriptural evidence and every other biblical exegete of the last six or so thousand years just missed it. I have a hard time taking that seriously and I have a lot of atheist friends who don't buy that story either.
_____________________________
"My whole hope is in thy exceeding great mercy--and that alone. Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt." - Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 3:38:43 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
Good points. The fact that so many professing Christians these days don't take the scripture seriously and attempt to harmonize it with secular philosophies of endless vast ages (which originated with ancient pagan religions btw) is precisely the reason the Church is openly mocked and scorned by so many people. If we can't take it seriously, why would they?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 3:43:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4634
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Hi, can you go through the list and write a brief thought on all the views before continuing? Sure, here's a brief thought. Only the "Calendar Day view" is consistent with proper exegesis. End of thought!
quote:
Clearly there is no historic consensus on this. Clearly you have ignored, denied or rejected every scholarly article I've linked to in the 3 years we've been butting heads on this issue, PB. Why should I expect you to believe the factual history of the YEC early church fathers when you won't even begin to believe the authoritative and inerrant factual history of Creation?!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 4:30:01 PM
|
|
|
capellaslight
Posts: 83
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
Ok because I like to play by the rules:
Calendar Day. - My first view, discarded after reviewing scripture further.
Day Age. - The view closest to my own. I believe has the most merit, It holds that the days are unbroken and real creation days that tell of the forming of the earth and creation of life and man.
Gap Theory. I'm suprised this one is not more popular, I hold to this in part believing verse 1 is a sumary of all the creation up to the forming of the earth. this would account for the 8 to 10 billion years before the creation of the earth.
The Framework View. I've never heard of this view before but it's interesting I'll look into it.
Analogical View. possable, especially since Gods time is not our time but the detail given about creation seems indicate that the creation event was real.
Israel-Centric. - unlikely Israel does not even exist until later in Gen.
Intermittent Day / Fiat Day. exodus indicates that Gods work was consecutive.
Days of Revelation - other scipture seems to say otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 4:37:45 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4634
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Calendar Day. - My first view, discarded after reviewing scripture further. Which Scripture(s) seem to negate the "Calendar Day" view, in your opinion?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 4:40:14 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 865
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PolarBear
I'm going to see if I can enumerate all the main views of the Biblical text and Creation. To my knowledge, every one of these views is held by Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I would like for everyone, before commenting further in the thread, to go down the list and briefly summarize how you see each view.
* Calendar Day. Each day in Genesis 1 represents a 24-hour period, and they must be consecutive. They extend from the initial creation of the universe to the formation of man, and therefore the universe cannot be more than about 10,000 years old (possibly 100,000 if the genealogies have gaps, but no calendar day enthusiasts I know of believe that).
As far as gaps go, there is no literary room for gaps before the flood. There's just no way around the fact that there was 1,656 years between the creation and the flood. The only place I see room for gaps (someone can correct my bible knowledge if I'm wrong) is when we get to Solomon. However, Solomon made deals with Tyre, and we know when Tyre was around, so the 6000 year bit... it's pretty fixed as far as I can tell.
quote:
* Day Age. Each day in Genesis 1 represents a long period of earth's history when some feature of the earth was developed.
This view is difficult at best to hold. Flowering plants (angiosperms) could not have possibly appeared before the sun was visible, whether we want to believe that the sun was created or merely appeared, plants had to have sunlight to sustain their "millions of years" of evolution. The passage in Genesis one specifically mentions seeding plants, so we are talking about complex plants, not merely phytoplankton. All this and more being the case, very few people who have thought about it still maintain this view, and tend toward the framework hypothesis. (a sign that when it comes to debates such as these, you never actually make any headway in changing a person's heart)
quote:
* Gap Theory. There was a gap of indefinite length between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The Creation week then follows in 6 consecutive 24-hour days.
I haven't actually met anybody personally who holds this view. I actually haven't given it much thought and tend to write it off as untenable superstition and speculation. It would make for cool video games, but bad theology. It seems to be defended by the belief that God would "never create anything that is without form and void", which is 1) not necessarily true and 2) not necessarily a good understanding of the words "tohu" and "bohu". A car frame, for instance, is unformed and unfilled until the stuff of the car gets attached to it.
quote:
* The Framework View. Consists of two "triads" of days, where days 1-3 focus on the "kingdoms" (light, water, land) and days 4-6 focus on their respective "kings" (heavenly bodies, sea animals, men). Takes no position on the age of the earth.
Actually this view is perfectly compatible with young-earth creationism. God did form the heavens and the earth as is stated in the Framework. The earth was unformed and unfilled so he formed it (Days 1-3) and filled it (Days 4-6). It's a great observation, but there is more to it. It's when you say, "see it's all just allegorical poetry" that we start to stray from reality. The days are still numbered, preceded by an evening and succeeded by a morning, and there is still the Exodus passage that we find that it was indeed 6 days. I like the observations of the Framework. I think it's cool that God did it so poetically! But that doesn't make it mere poetry.
quote:
* Analogical View. The 6 days are represented in God's time and are presented as such to give a pattern for our workweek. Takes no position on the age of the earth.
quote:
* Israel-Centric. The creation days somehow speak of God's preparation of Israel. Takes no position on the age of the earth.
There are probably a lot of analogies that we can draw from the days of creation, order out of chaos, the preparation of Israel, the defeat of darkness, life out of disaster, whatever. No matter how many analogies you can draw from the days of creation, they are still quite literally the first 7 days of the universe.
quote:
* Intermittent Day. The days were calendar days, but not consecutive. Any amount of time could elapse between each one.
Just like the "Day Age" theory, there is no single person that is going to suggest that the history of the universe is similar in order to that given in Genesis 1.quote:
* Fiat Day. The 6 days represented 6 24-hour periods of time, which could possibly have been consecutive but not necessarily, where God spoke His creative acts, which were then accomplished. I'm having trouble understanding this one. It sounds like you're saying "Maybe it happened that way, maybe not." This sounds more like "The Undefined Day" theory. If by Fiat Day you mean that it's a day because God says so, then I suppose it could be. It is interesting though that so many are of the opinion that God wouldn't deceive us by giving us "all this evidence" that the earth is old, but are willing to say that basically God says the earth was created in a week then claim that the earth was NOT created in a week.
quote:
* Days of Revelation. The 6 days represent 6 consecutive days in which God told the Creation story to Moses.
And it's only a coincidence that later on that day Moses found out that "in six days God created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is."
quote:
So, what do you think? What are the strengths/weaknesses of the various views?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 4:52:28 PM
|
|
|
capellaslight
Posts: 83
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
As I've said elsewhere, anyone who trys to sell me the idea that they came to an non-"Calendar day" (as you call it) view of Genesis strictly from Scripture is kidding themselves. No one in the history of the Christian church or in the history of Judaism read or exegeted the days of Genesis as being anything other than a short time period. (Some thought it was instantaneous, such as Augustine, for philosophical reasons).
Well actually church history has a great range of beliefs on Gen 1 passage. We wouldn't have all the positions presented in the OP unless our church leaders studied scripture and thought of them. Some of them are really outside the box, Kudos to them who thought of them I know I wouldn't come up with that many!.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 5:06:10 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4634
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Well actually church history has a great range of beliefs on Gen 1 passage. Maybe you mean church history of the last 150 years or so, which is not even 10% of the duration of Christendom! Obviously this loss of proper hermeneutics has been in direct proportion to the influence of uniformitarian naturalism on the "dumbing down" of Biblical scholarship and the submission of Christian leaders to "authority" of man's fallible scientism. The only "thinking out" that goes on here is novel ways to torture God's Word in a feeble attempt to make it fit the latest scientific fad.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 5:15:37 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
2 Peter 3
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
This text clearly indicates the Creation and Flood events were not separated by long epochs, in fact the Psalmist seems to look back at both as two almost indistinquishable events of ancient history, and speaks of both in the same breath. There are many other clues like this in the epistles that the Creation is not some event of endless long ages ago.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/15/2009 6:02:23 PM
|
|
|
Credo_ut_Intelligam
Posts: 265
Joined: 3/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: capellaslight
Well actually church history has a great range of beliefs on Gen 1 passage.
Care to list all the divergent views on Genesis 1 that existed prior to the 17th century and how popular they were?
"It is a fact that before the modern era... only a tiny handful [of Christians] ever questioned that the six days of Genesis 1 were ordinary 24-hour-type days. The few who did question the six days of Genesis 1 did so for philosophical and not scientific reasons. Even so, no one suggested God took a vast amount of time" (Jordon, Creation in Six Days, p. 17, 18).
quote:
We wouldn't have all the positions presented in the OP unless our church leaders studied scripture and thought of them. Some of them are really outside the box, Kudos to them who thought of them I know I wouldn't come up with that many!.
I'm a little bit confused by this. I mean, isn't it like listing all the different cults that sprang from Christianity (Mormon, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness) and then praising them for studying Scripture to arrive at their misinterpretations?
The point is, I don't agree that all the views are being drawn out from Scripture. They are being eisogeted into it. Like I said, I'm not saying they are heretical or even necessarily horrible. I respect some scholars, like the late M. Kline, who disagree with the calendar day view. I just think they are not properly dealing with Scripture at this point.
_____________________________
"My whole hope is in thy exceeding great mercy--and that alone. Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt." - Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 11:16:13 AM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, here's a brief thought. Only the "Calendar Day view" is consistent with proper exegesis. End of thought!
Try a bit harder please. Most of the views actually could be complementary to a young earth position, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on them.
You too yzf and Credo.
I won't reply to any of your other points until you do.
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 11:25:44 AM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
As far as gaps go, there is no literary room for gaps before the flood. There's just no way around the fact that there was 1,656 years between the creation and the flood.
Many Hebrew scholars disagree with you there. Though I would tend to agree that of the Genesis timelines, most of the gaps would be in Genesis 11, not 5. I do think the Flood was relatively soon after Creation.
quote:
This view is difficult at best to hold. Flowering plants (angiosperms) could not have possibly appeared before the sun was visible, whether we want to believe that the sun was created or merely appeared, plants had to have sunlight to sustain their "millions of years" of evolution. The passage in Genesis one specifically mentions seeding plants, so we are talking about complex plants, not merely phytoplankton. All this and more being the case, very few people who have thought about it still maintain this view, and tend toward the framework hypothesis. (a sign that when it comes to debates such as these, you never actually make any headway in changing a person's heart)
That *might* be *the* trickiest part of day-age, I agree. Hugh Ross maintains that the Hebrew there *can* mean very simplistic plants. I don't personally know, but if this is day-age's biggest problem, it has fewer problems than Calendar Day. No position is 100% clear on every issue. That's why these debates happen.
quote:
Actually this view is perfectly compatible with young-earth creationism. God did form the heavens and the earth as is stated in the Framework. The earth was unformed and unfilled so he formed it (Days 1-3) and filled it (Days 4-6). It's a great observation, but there is more to it. It's when you say, "see it's all just allegorical poetry" that we start to stray from reality. The days are still numbered, preceded by an evening and succeeded by a morning, and there is still the Exodus passage that we find that it was indeed 6 days. I like the observations of the Framework. I think it's cool that God did it so poetically! But that doesn't make it mere poetry.
Yeah I think that is a good observation. The Framework hypothesizers are not against a young earth, from what I can tell, they simply believe that reading it in this framework makes more sense then reading it like the literal calendar view does. Of course, this view is probably compatible with Big Bang cosmology as well (as I think are all the views except Calendar Day).
quote:
There are probably a lot of analogies that we can draw from the days of creation, order out of chaos, the preparation of Israel, the defeat of darkness, life out of disaster, whatever. No matter how many analogies you can draw from the days of creation, they are still quite literally the first 7 days of the universe.
or eons, yeah. 
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 11:48:53 AM
|
|
|
Credo_ut_Intelligam
Posts: 265
Joined: 3/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PolarBear
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, here's a brief thought. Only the "Calendar Day view" is consistent with proper exegesis. End of thought!
Try a bit harder please. Most of the views actually could be complementary to a young earth position, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on them.
You too yzf and Credo.
I won't reply to any of your other points until you do.
Views like day-age, gap theory, intermitten, etc. become completely superfluous (beside some simply being wildly speculative) if you are going to believe in a young earth... So you're admonition to try harder seems unfounded and presumptious.
Why would you assume that I haven't studied the other views?
_____________________________
"My whole hope is in thy exceeding great mercy--and that alone. Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt." - Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 12:29:09 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4634
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I won't reply to any of your other points until you do. Well then, I will just take my marbles and go home, too!
BTW, I have no other points to make, PB. The text says what the text says and all the eisegetical posturing you care to perform does not change the correct interpretation of Yom!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 12:59:27 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PolarBear
Hugh Ross maintains...
Ah, there is your problem, good sir, stop listening to Hugh Ross, he's basically an apostate who has spent his life preaching the ancient earth anti-gospel, and he's led other people down his path of apostacy, such as Geisler, while propagating a secular version of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Christian views of the Creation days - 4/16/2009 1:17:06 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: yzf-r1
quote:
ORIGINAL: PolarBear
Hugh Ross maintains...
Ah, there is your problem, good sir, stop listening to Hugh Ross, he's basically an apostate who has spent his life preaching the ancient earth anti-gospel, and he's led other people down his path of apostacy, such as Geisler, while propagating a secular version of creation.
That is far and away the most pathetic excuse for a post I have ever seen. Here is his biography:
http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-people#hugh_ross
Does that look like an apostate to you?
"Secular version of creation" ... huh? Dude, you obviously haven't listened to a single word of his.
Although Hugh speaks plenty about Jesus Christ on his own, I'd encourage anyone who thinks his organization is apostate to listen to the "Straight Thinking" podcast on the reasons.org site, given by his staff philosophical apologist, Kenneth Samples. He recently did a very interesting three part series about the Trinity, specifically analyzing various metaphors about how accurately they describe Trinitarian concepts. I think even the most ardent YECs would agree that he passionately defends historic Christian thinking.
_____________________________
Tip of the day: "You" has three letters, not one. It is spelled Y-O-U.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
