1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A literal 6 24-hr days?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by john6:63, May 8, 2003.

  1. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is incorrect. You have to know God, the bible is just one way toward that goal. What you suggest sounds more like bible worship.

    It is a slippery slope, the bolded section (which I bolded) is where you are begging the question. I agree with the second part of your post-we do need to take a better look at those lessons and doctrines.

    Let me ask you something: What good is faith if you don't need to have it (ie, everything you believe is proven)? The final end result you suggest is not true, as there are a lot of Christians out there who do not accept a literal Genesis, yet accept a supernatural Jesus. How do you explain that if what you suggest above is true?

    God knows very well how to communicate with humans, however humans do not fair as well.
     
  2. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is incorrect. You have to know God, the bible is just one way toward that goal. What you suggest sounds more like bible worship.</font>[/QUOTE]Whoa! Now you are taking ME out of context! I was talking about look at meanings of phrases and such! For salvation yes, you have to know God. But there are plenty of people who are experts in the Bible who are not saved, and that does not stop me from respecting their knowledge or learning from them how to research Bible meanings using Bible. We are talking about two different things if you think I was referring to only needing to know Bible for salvation. Please look at the context in which that was said, OK?

    It is a slippery slope, the bolded section (which I bolded) is where you are begging the question. I agree with the second part of your post-we do need to take a better look at those lessons and doctrines.</font>[/QUOTE]The point is, my question is real: Where do you stop?

    Let me ask you something: What good is faith if you don't need to have it (ie, everything you believe is proven)? The final end result you suggest is not true, as there are a lot of Christians out there who do not accept a literal Genesis, yet accept a supernatural Jesus. How do you explain that if what you suggest above is true?</font>[/QUOTE]First of all, the Holy Spirit will lead us all into the truth, so if one is born again of Christ, one will progressively be led to the truth through his or her time on earth. But the beginning of that truth is the Bible, actually. To have faith it is true. To walk in the faith that God Himself gives you day by day which becomes a total testimony of your life, that you can depend utterly and completely on God even if your own understanding and mental capacity is left far behind. He is safe to depend on. And that starts with Bible. If He can't get His Word right for all to see, how can we possibly have faith in what we can't see?

    As far as 'proven' goes, I don't think I have ever used that word here... [​IMG]

    God knows very well how to communicate with humans, however humans do not fair as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Granted 100%. That's why we not only need to depend on Him, but can.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, not bothered. First time I have even mentioned it. Simple point that it is necessary to bring in outside information to understand the passage. If you didn't know about the idiom you would think the passage was wrong. Same thing. If you do not know or do not think that the earth is old, you can read Genesis 1 & 2 as a literal narrative. (In fact, this is what you do.) If you look at the other evidence God has given us and accept that evidence as indicating and old earth you read the same passages in a diferent context but just as valid. But I know we will disagree with what the evidence shows. And I respect that you try and show how the evidence supports you.

    The whole point of the slippery slope objection is that the assumption is that there is nothing to stop one from going from the earth is old to the miracles and such didn't happen. But there is a line. And that is why it is a logical fallacy. In this case some things could not have any evidence and some could. In areas, such as science, different scenerios would leave evidence to what happened. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old and if evolution happened we can find evidence and since the Bible cannot contradict it Genesis must be understood in that context. And I do not think that God would lie to us either in his Word or in his creation. The miracles of Jesus, for example, would leave nothing that could be tested. We cannot prove or disprove them. We accept them on faith. If we did not have faith we would not be here talking to each other about it.

    Let's see here.

    First let's go to

    http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Misc/3c273.html

    Where the text shows that the brightest known quasar is 10^12 times the brightness of the sun. The astronomers also calculate for themselves that

    1 parces = 3.26 light years therfore 10 parsecs = 32.6 light years. So at about 30 light years, this quasar, the most luminous known, would be as bright as the sun.

    I got the brightness from a different source previously but had the same value.

    Now according to the inverse square law the Brightness of an object is related to the distance and luminosity as such.

    B = L / (4 * PI * D^2)

    Now B1 = apparent brightness Sun and B2 = quasar.
    L1 = actual luminosity sun and L2 = luminosity of quasar. L2 = 10^12 * L1.

    B1 / B2 is how much brighter the sun is than the quasar. Now if you divide out the other side of the equation the 4 and the PI cancel out along with the L1 once you substitute the relationship between the two. Reducing you get

    B1 / B2 = D2^2 / ( (10^12) * D1^2 )

    Where

    D1 = distance to sun = 93,000,000 miles
    D2 = Distance to center of the galaxy = 28000 light years = 1.6*10^17 miles

    Multiplying every thing out you get the sun as about 3 million times the brightness of 3C 273 if placed at the center of our galaxy. Turning this into a magnitude difference you get

    2.51 ^x = 3100000

    gives 16.3 magnitudes difference.

    So you get sun = -26. Full moon = -13. Our example = -9.7. Venus (max) = -4.0. Sirius (brightest star) = -1.

    Now, in looking the information back up I realized that the wording seems to indicate that 3C 273 is the brightest quasar visually. Its absolute brightness is -26.1. A little digging produced a histogram from a survey of quasars showing most to be in the -24 to -28 range. The very brightest I could find was about -29. So, adding the extra three magnitudes gives -12.7, just a touch dimmer than the full moon.

    As a check, I solved for the distance to get the same brightness as the sun and got a little less than 6 parsecs rather than 10. Close enough for me. It confirms that I am not off by orders of magnitude. Solving the other direction yields that an object ould have to be another 3 million times brighter than 3C 273 to have the same visual brightness as the sun if placed at the center of the galaxy. That is to say it would need an absolute brightness of -42.3!

    The final point has to be how much more massive most quasars are than our supermassive black hole. At least three orders of magnitude (1000 fold) larger.

    I hope you don't find any major errors now that I have put this in public. ;)

    [ May 08, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Excellent point.

    Genesis one makes it clear "EVENING and MORNING" where ONE Day - Yom.

    Light and dark - evening followed by Morning - ONE cycle - ONE day, (ONE rotation of the Planet to anyone "watching").

    Exodus 20 makes it IRON clad showing that "JUST AS GOD CREATED the world in SIX DAYS and rested the seventh day SO ALSO WE are to work SIX days and rest the seventh". The EXACT lock-step equivalence between Post-flood DAYS and Genesis 1-2 - DAYS is set literally "in stone".

    Impossible to squirm loose from that - but we have "some Christians" for whom the path of "compromised Christianity" is the only choice. Not matter how muc scripture refutes it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    UTEOTW

    Barry is dictating to me, as I type faster than he does:

    The analysis depends largly upon the instrinsic brilliance of quasar 3C273. This is one of the closer quasars and least instrinsically bright. It has been noticed that the brilliance of quasars increases with distance. Therefore, at the origin of the cosmos (as represented by those furthest from us), quasars were more intrinsically brilliant, and the activity died away as time went on. This is evidenced by the relatively quiet black hole we have at the center of our galaxy.

    The quasars at the frontiers of the cosmos range from 1000 to 10,000 times the brilliance of our entire galaxy of 100 billion suns. This means that the output of the quasar is 10^14-10^15 times that of our sun. So we are talking about an object which is 100 to 1000 times brighter your estimate.

    Given the earlier, faster speed of light and the brightness of our early quasar, it is therefore logical to consider the presence of that quasar to be the source of light during the first days of the earth's existence.
     
  6. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fair enough, I accept your criticism as accurate.

    Where it's obvious that a literal meaning is important (such as in the new testiment). As I've demonstrated, Genesis isn't overwhelmingly clear. To scrutinize it and determine this was the process God used to create the world is to take away from the message of original sin and the fact that God did indeed create the world.

    If you take a step back and think about it for a moment (the universal 'you'), if God actually explained how he created the world early man would have had trouble translating it. I'd like to remind everyone that their are many different translations of the bible and that some of the meanings of the words are different-yet the overall meaning is the same.

    I agree with you that the Holy Spirit will lead us to the truth and that faith is necessary. You didn't answer my question though. You said:
    To which I said
    Which indicates that your assertion was wrong. You didn't answer me.

    I know you didn't use the word proven-I did, I was just asking you a question.
     
  7. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    I meant it as a joke, b/c it is funny. So how long do you believe it took God in Genesis to create? Please be specific. If you cannot, then as the joke implies, it could be 6 seconds or what I believe. Agreed?

    When one adds 2 and 2 together one gets 4. When one reads the creation account in Genesis one gets 6 – 24 hr periods.

    As is Gods Word in the Bible, I am very specific in my answer. 6 - 24 hr periods.
     
  8. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why don't you try your hand at some of the questions I presented? How is their a day without a moon and the sun and if God did create light and dark without need of the sun and moon, and was able to keep the plants alive-then why was the sun and moon necessary at all?

    Also this idea of dawn, dusk, night and day is quaint but it's very dependent on where you are in the world.

    Nice assault on my belief system. Why is "some Christians" in qoutes? Are you asserting that you are a better Christian then me? "Compromised Christianity", excuse me?? Where do you get off judging me? Seriously you don't have the right to make such a judgment call-Jesus and God do. You need a lesson in humility.
     
  9. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    May I suggest that you read the Book of Job? God was very stern with Job for questioning His awesome power!

    It’s amazing what we can get out of the Bible when we read Gods Word! The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, what may or may not (depends on who’s reading it) be clear in one Book is defiantly reinforced in another Book. Thks BobRyan for the comment.

    Does anyone know where the forum to discuss prophecy would be?
     
  10. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see, so you find my religious values to be a joke. Well, my respect for you is just going through the ceiling now.

    As far as Genesis goes, how long it took is not important. God could have created the Earth in 6 days, 6 seconds, etc; however if he did that makes God a liar because all of the evidence points to a much older Earth.

    Well the Genesis chapters you've mentioned thus far certainly don't give the precise figure of 24 hours. Not to mention if it did it would be wrong, as a day is actually a bit longer then 24 hours; which is why we have leap years.

    And please in the future keep your derogatory remarks about my faith and my intelligence out of your posts. You believe differently then I, that's fine.
     
  11. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meatros

    I’ve questioned everyone I know who has read the Bible and they believe that Genesis is painfully obvious! Now I know of one person that has recently started to ask me questions concerning my trust and faith in Jesus Christ, (he’s atheist) he still has a hard time believing in a 6 literal day creation, b/c it was embedded in his head in science class that the earth is millions of years old. Like he told me and what I believe is true with most all “old” earth creationist, is that it’s a “leap of faith” to say that God CAN and DID create in 6 literal days.

    Gods Word influences my mind. If you believe that it couldn’t have taken God 6 literal days, then that’s your opinion and we will never convince each other otherwise. I believe that “can’t” isn’t a word in Gods vocabulary.
     
  12. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I believe that 'lieing' isn't in God's vocabulary either. I'm not disagreeing that God couldn't have made the world in six days.

    If God did, then why does all the evidence promote the contrary? Why would God deceive us like that?
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is only one way to save inerrancy and that is whenever there is a seeming conflict with the facts, reinterpret until the conflict goes away.

    Thus, because the Scripture says that at Joshua's word the sun stood still, the notions of the astronomer Copernicus to the effect that the earth goes around the sun and not vice-versa were opposed on scriptural grounds. Today we simply interpret this verse as being meant to be understood phenomally rather than literally.

    Although there are a few diehard literalists that insist the earth is flat, on biblical grounds.

    I'm sure most of you are familiar with other "fixes" we come up with for various difficult passages.

    Genesis one is no different. We can re-interpret it ONCE WE REALIZE WE HAVE TO DO IT.

    At this time in history, the realization we have to do it is still in the process of getting across into our churches. And there will always be some who resist, even as there remain flat-earthers today.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Meatros, the evidence is not deceiving us; the interpretations are deceiving us. And yes, I know that there are a lot of people who say they believe in Jesus but not Genesis. This is interesting, because those that I know who say that have never read the complete Bible anyway. And this does actually lead me to wonder about their position in Christ. If they are spiritually alive (have been born again in Christ), then where is there spiritual hunger? Why haven't they read the Bible? Why are they content to let their daily lives go on as before? You see, when one is truly submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ, and born again in the spirit, the change is so profound that it affects every aspect of life. It also produces a spiritual hunger which cries out for spiritual food -- Scripture and prayer-communion with God Himself. Instead, from those who say they believe in Jesus but not Genesis, I see a rather casual attitude toward the entire Bible and their religious life. Quite frankly, this does not compute with me. Hopefully, that is my own lack of understanding...


    Paul, you can put up more straw men in a single post than anyone else I know!

    1. The Bible does not support a flat earth! I asked you for references regarding this subject in another threaon this and you have not provided any.

    2. Of course Joshua's sun is to be reported by Joshua according to what he saw! We still say the sun sets and rises and that has nothing to do with the fact that we know the earth goes around the sun! Maybe all our weathermen should be fired for referring to geocentricity in their speech?

    3. Genesis does not have to be interpreted or reinterpreted at all. It only needs to be read. God knows how to communicate clearly.
     
  15. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    This isn’t an issue of old earth vs. new earth or global flood vs. local flood…etc. the issue that is destroying Christianity is the attempt by secular man to add to the Bible what he believes is to be correct.

    The real issue is the Authority of the Word of God. If one is to take the Word of God as it is written with no outside influences one will come to a 6 literal day conclusion.

    You quote Paul is a scary thought; to be honest it reminds me of Nazism!

    When secular man starts questioning the Authority of the Word of God (as in the case with Meatros) and secular man starts to add to the Bible what they believe is to be what God really meant to say, is very, very, very, very dangerous! This opens the door for our children and their children to start questioning other areas of the Bible. Some are already questioning Christ’s resurrection. Soon they will start questioning Jesus’ miracles and science is already saying "virgins can’t have a baby." Then secular man will start to reinterpret thoes verses as well. It's absurd!!

    Secular man is opening the door for this kind of thought process. This is very dangerous to Christianity and if you can’t see this you’re blind!!
     
  16. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Greetings Helen! [​IMG]

    Every time you read something you are interpreting it according to your current beliefs. Unfortunately, we all have the tendency to see only what we want to see in the pages of scripture, so methods of biblical interpretation have been developed to help us remove some of our prejudices and actually work carefully with the text to understand what is actually says.

    A number of years ago I was in a biblical interpretation class in seminary and was given an assignment to interpret one of three biblical passages and write a paper on the meaning. One of the passages we could choose was Genesis 1 and 2, so I decided to interpret that passage for my paper because it was controversial and I thought I would be able to show that the popular “literal” interpretation was the correct one (I was essentially a literal six-day creationist at the time, although I was open to reexamining my beliefs).

    My experience, in brief:

    I took it all the way back to the Hebrew texts and carefully translated every word in the first two chapters (it’s actually very easy to translate if you understand elementary Hebrew). Then I analyzed the text carefully and noted not only what was said, but how it was said. I also compared the two sequences of creation according found in each chapter and tried to reconcile the two – the two lists cannot be “literally” reconciled in my opinion without saying that the author of the text mixed up his lists. But since the entire passage is written with such skill and beauty (it comes through in the Hebrew), I could not conclude that it was an accident – there was certainly a purpose behind it. I realized that the primary meaning of the passage was non-literal.

    I did some historical study and compared the sequences of some ancient Near East cosmogonies and realized that Genesis 1 follows the format of the ancient cosmogonies of the region, while Genesis 2 does something quite different. I realized that this passage, like the opening of the Gospel of John and Paul’s speech on Mars Hill, is an attempt of the author to speak to the culture of his day and introduce the God of Israel as the Creator of the universe and all humankind. (The content of Genesis 1 and the pagan cosmogonies is quite different, but the format and cadence would be recognizable to the pagan world and they would certainly understand the implications of it.) Furthermore, the name for God in the first creation narrative is simply ‘Elohim’ (a rather generic name for God that was used by pagans as well) while the name for God in the second creation narrative is ‘YHWH Elohim’ (the God of the Israelites). By putting the two narratives together in this fashion, the author is beautifully pointing out that the Creator of all the world is the God of the Israelites and is the only true God. That’s the main point of Genesis 1 and 2, not a literal ‘scientific’ eyewitness account of creation.

    Beyond that main point, there is quite a bit of truth regarding the order of creation in the passage that is the foundation for all biblical teaching. For instance, God created gender, male and female, to be expressed sexually in the context of marriage. Furthermore the differences between male and female are more than physical – both are created in the image of God and share in His likeness.

    I could go on with the truth expressed in Genesis 1 and 2, but I would go on for hours and that’s not the purpose of this discussion. [​IMG]

    But I also want to point out that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis does not necessarily rule out a young earth, promote any evolutionary teaching, or mean that the interpreter is does not believe in creation. They are all separate issues.

    In my opinion, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is the only way I could be honest and responsible with the text. While you may disagree, please understand that at least for me, it has nothing to do with a lack of faith or a desire to reconcile scripture with science. I take the scripture at it’s own terms and then try to figure out what scientific evidence might say in relation to scriptural teaching.

    Thanks!
     
  17. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I respectfully disagree. Please see my post above to Helen. It tells of my struggle with this passage.
     
  18. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know you don't (at least currently) accept the evidence of an old earth and you know that I (at least currently) don't accept that the evidence of a young earth. I don't see how believing Genesis to be literal effects someone's position with Christ. Whether you believe the person has read the bible or not is not important to that person's salvation. Believing Jesus died for your sins is the requirement for getting into heaven.

    These two points are as related as you appear to have made them. Someone can be profoundly changed by accepting Christ, while at the same time not have read the bible.

    This is anecdotal and I don't mean it to firmly convince anyone; but a few people who I've witnessed to have changed profoundly after accepting Christ, and they hadn't read the bible until months after their conversion.

    Perhaps that is because of the individual person, not as a result of accepting Genesis as literal.

    While I don't think they should be fired for referring to geocentricity in their speech, I do think some of their 'predictions' are reason enough :D
     
  19. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true and I've told you why.

    Strawman. I'm not questioning the authority of God, I'm questioning your interpretation of God's word. There is a big difference.

    I have also demonstrated that this is *NOT* true, as the majority of Christians do not accept Genesis as literal. So your slippery slope argument of atheism is untrue.

    I agree, your summation of 'what will happen' is absurd. I base this on the fact that Christianity is still prevelant in people who do not accept a literal Genesis.

    I'm not buying your bad logic or your faulty rhetoric.
     
  20. mayot

    mayot Guest

    You’re absolutely correct John6:63!!!! Amen!!
     
Loading...