In the Beginning....

The biblical evidence they use comes from various places, they also argue they have yet to hear the biblical support for a 24 hour period. I also heard regarding the Sabbath day of "rest" as clearly not a 24 hour period as God is "still" in His day of rest in Heb 4. Another is the problem of what activity can be done on a day, for example they say the events on day 6 do not seem to fit a 24 hour period. Day 3 the land produced vegetation which would not fit a 24 hour period under the natural process of growth.

The Hebrew phrase puts evening and morning and day as one statement. So what the explanation for evening and morning and day is that during the "set period of time" (yom) had an unnumbered amount of days for which all had both evening and morning.

Anway that's just to show that when you say there is no biblical support you obviously plant your flag and make the assumption that 24 hour periods are the ONLY interpretation, when the old earthers would find that 24 hour periods in Gen 1 to be irrelevant since there is no reason to assume that MUST be the correct interpretation.

Darren

 

Right. But think of it this way, Sis. On the "DAWN" of Columbus's "DAY" the matter of the shape of the earth was still a matter of great debate.
But as the "SUN SET" on that "DAY" the world, other than a few unreasonable Christians who held to flat earth erroneously thinking that was the Bible teaching on the matter, most understood the earth to be round.

There you find the same type of terminology to describe an age.

there was an age when God created this and an age when he created that. Those ages are marked by evenings and mornings in a figurative sense.

This is the only position that both Scripture and Science allows.

Remember, all truth is God's truth.

 

You are correct. Thank you for you input.

 

You are wrong, Sis. The Hebrew does not demand that it is a 24 hour period as many Hebrew scholars will tell you- one of which is Delitzsch, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of all time.

And I'd like to know how Gruden was taken out of context. Hugh Ross is a highly respected man. I doubt you've found something so quickly that undermines that.

 

That's utterly ridiculous. you have not considered the implications of this remark.

Any theologian will tell you that the Bible is full of truth that the greatest minds cannot comprehend much less children.

Noah's Ark and the use of the term "day" figuratively is apples and oranges.
In my day we have seen the deterioration of logic. I hope one day we will see it return.

Neither application of "day" in those remarks is a 24 hour period but nearly any child could understand what I meant.

 

Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that

So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16

In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,

If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17


Found Here

 

What is the point of this post? No one here denies inspiration. How did this add to the discussion?

 

Dr. James Bar is very mistaken. I have already provided the name of one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of all time- franz Delitzsch. Dr. Walter Kaiser, one of the translators of the NKJV also believes that the day in Genesis 1 is NOT a 24 hour period.

Follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_tqEEQwcs

 

No you haven't You provided a name and made an unfounded claim. Nothing more. And Dr. Barr has more credibility than your off hand claim.

 

You are not interested in the truth. If you were you would google Franz Delitzsch and you would follow the link I provided.

You are interested only in holding blindly to your traditional view point without submitting it to honest scrutiny.

 

You made an outlandish and unfounded claim about this guy. It therefore has no credibility.

The truth is an old earth is contradictory to the gospel, it is contradictory to creation itself. If you want to deal with those issues get back to me.

 

Nothing to do with it. The activities of Adam on day 6 was not supernatural at all it depended on Adam. Their position is that Eve was created on day 6 as well as Adam working in the garden and naming all the animals, that's quite a long day.....

Darren

 

Says who?

What do you think "all" refers to? How many kinds do you know there were at the time?

 

You are the only one in this whole debate who makes unfounded claims. Valiant put to you a very thoughtful post and you dismissed it haphazardly because you, apparently, don't care about the truth.

This very POST of yours hurls unfounded claims. You claim that the old universe position UNDERMINES THE GOSPEL!!!!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING CLAIM AND YOU GIVE NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!!

You are the only one guilty of doing the things you accuse others of doing.

 

Whatever...

 

OK but I did mention both day 3 and day 6. So let me just make mention of the issue for your interest.

When God created on the 3rd day the bible states that God gave the botanical creation time to yield and God observed the result and said it was good. So the old earther would say this does support the old earth model because the trees, grass, flowers, seeds..etc had time to grow. This was NOT a supersped miracle but a period of time took place to allow natural growth. The young earther would say it was all fit into a 24 hour period, therefore the text in verse 12 had to refer to a supernatural growth whereby the course of growth was compacted down into that 24 hour period.

If you take the position this is a speeded up accounted then you would be doing that only to the convenience of trying to fit a 24 hour day time period. And again, why it that necessary if you are trying to understand the bible for the information it contains rather than defending a particular position?


Now the sixth day account with Adam and Eve -

God had created all the rest on day 6 AND rested, therefore after day 6 God did not complete any more creation projects, therefore Eve was formed on day 6. Therefore the events in ch2 follow that of day 6 NOT after the 7th day.

And that is the reason that Adam's activities on day 6 cannot logically be a speeded up day, Adam was in time and apart of the natural temporal physis of time. Again, is there really a necessary onus to interpret a day as a 24 hour period given the events of each day? These are not my arguments I am simply relaying the information as I have read it myself. To say the old earth model has no biblical support to me is crazy.

Darren

 

Weasel words.

Darren