NT six literal days

You only dealt with half of the definition, or concentrated on the last half. How is knowledge gained, and what is scientific knowledge. All scientific knowledge must be gained by observation. If there is on observer it is not science. There was no one to observe the origin of the earth, thus evolution puts itself in the realm of the metaphysical or faith and religion. It is scientism not science. It takes faith to believe in evolution. It cannot be observed. It is not true science. Sceince is observable knowledge; knowlege gained by observation.
The law of gravity was discovered by observation--an apple falling off of a tree. Never did any apple fall and go upward into outerspace. All things fall downward because of gravity. It is our observation that gives us that knowledge.

Are you denying that these individuals had knowledge, gained by their own observation of what they accomplished in their respective fields? Are you denying that they were experts, as the Bible says they were, each in their own fields? Would not an expert in music be student of it? An observer? A scientist of his own art?

Why do you take the one part of native superstition out of the context of everything else that Jacob did? Why do you ignore all else that Jacob did in the science of genetics and breeding? Isn't it odd that you choose this one lttle inicident out of all the chapters and details given to the work that Jacob put into the raising of sheep. Amazing! What a selective memory you have. Yet, in spite of that incident you fail to realize that it was God that over-ruled that entire incident, when the record plainly says:

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
--How did God give Jacob the cattle? Not by stripped poplars as you suggest! It wasn't through superstition. It was God that gave those cattle to him in spite of a native superstion. Are you willing to believe the Bible on this account or not.

Now go back and read the entire account and see how Jacob used natural selection and breeding techniques to raise strong cattle of a specific variety, and make sure that another variety was of a weaker sort. That was entirely apart from the incident of the stripped poplars. If you can't see it, your blind to the Scriptures. Jacob was aware of genetic principles.

 

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

If the physicians of George Washington's day knew of this simple basic scientific principle--that the life of the flesh is in the blood, then they wouldn't have let the blood out of his body (blood-letting), and killed him when they thought they were curing him.

 

Your problem is not solved by simply pretending not to understand the text. Christ said that the Jews were children of their father the devil for they were lying and he is a liar and the father of it!

R.C Sproul points that that this form of "Father" child relationship IS being used in Gen 6 and we can easily see it used prior to that in terms of the FOUNDING FATHERs of certain arts and crafts.

Your wooden insistence that founding-father mean genetic progenetor is really silly. It shows the extremes to which your argument has forced your cornered responses about pre-science.

Better to throw away that shovel than to simply keep digging.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here you have unwittingly debunked your own failed argument!!

Take a CLOSE look at the chapter rather than closing your eyes and "hoping for the best".

What we see is a SUPERSTITIOUS Jacob - in a supertitious culture being SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECTED by the Angel who is NOT a pre-science being!!

In other words this is a story that PROVES the fact that the Bible is NOT being dumbed-down by the unscientifice views of the Bible character. In this case the Angel points out that is the MALES with the genes for the desired trait that are mating to get the result!!

In other words the Angel points out that God is the one directing the process and that it is determined by the genetic attributes of the males!!

Gen 31
11 "Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'Here I am.'
12 "He said, 'Lift up now your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating are striped, speckled, and mottled; for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And the evening and the morning were the (1-6) day. Why would the Lord say this if the time interval were anything but a 24 hr. day?

 

In common parlance now the term "day" is used more broadly than a twenty-four hour period. "This is a new day for ..." "In our day and time ..." It is poetic language and need not be read in such a literal fashion.

What those of us on this forum who do not read Genesis literally are trying to do is to see and communicate an understanding of Creation that takes seriously a God who is intentional in His work, but which does not require the suspension of our critical faculties. Not so incidentally, in my earlier post I did point out that both the scientist and the literalist are "guilty" (if that's the word) of rationalism -- putting our confidence in reason rather than in relationship.

Part of the issue is, of course, the way we see the source of Scripture, as well as the way we read it. If the source is "the LORD" directly, with no filtering through human minds, then I suppose you would think of a six-day creation (although even here I would argue for a poetic rather than a flat-out historical description). But if you see the source of Scripture as the Lord moving in the minds and hearts of free beings -- prophets, priests, editors, redactors, and, above all, the community of Israel -- then it becomes very meaningful to dig through the presupppositions of ancient Hebrews to find the kernels of truth.

Several have spoken of scientism as a faith commitment. I agree. I know that there is a fair amount of Hegelian theory behind Darwinian conclusions and behind the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis. These approaches are -- well, rationalistic! But they serve as useful tools to get at that wonderful Word behind the words. No doubt another generation will be able to discern the assumptions we bring too. All human thought is transitory. But we cannot just dismiss it all and resort to a position that says, in effect, "Take these ancient words, written in a different culture, at face value."

 

Well, for starters we know how long He took and in what order He created...it's in Genesis.

 

I guess those that believe in "millions-of-years", etc. would think/say that AiG is spreading lies. I am well aware that "pseudo-science" is a favorite word among the critics of AiG. What Scriptures do AiG ignore? I am sure they would like you cite them on this.

As for what you bring up about Isaiah 45:18 , this is actually addressed in at least one of the articles I linked to. This one - The gap theory—an idea with holes? - It is a rather lengthy discussion (about 4 - 5 paragraphs or more) therefore I probably should not cut and paste that much from an article. I think it starts discussing this about 7 paragraphs down. It explains it well and shows that it does not support the gap theory nor causes the problem that you suggest.

 

Good point.

God is accurate!

God is trustworthy!

God is right.

Atheist darwinism is "dead wrong".

Seems like an easy observation to make and it ends with the result that we choose faith in the bible over faith in atheist darwinism.

What is not to like??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Question: If one just read the Bible and did not know what "long-age" evolution teaches, then what would this person probably believe about how long God took to create?

 

Never -- not not once! No not in ALL of SCRIPTURE are these symbolic or allegorical terms for "day" used in the form "EVENING and MORNING were the Xth-day" with cardinal numbers assigned to each day and evening-morning time units given AND such units even used in LAW "SIX days you shall labor and do ALL YOUR work...for in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea AND ALL that is in them..."

.The point is that simply "making stuff up" as you are doing does not form a valid substitute for actual Bible exegesis of the topic.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Wrong.

You are trying to propose a compromise with atheist darwinism and then ignore the critique given here that SHOWS such a compromise to corrupt both the bible view of the Gospel AND reason itself.

That TOO was a fallacy in that you pretend that the scientist DOES NOT take the Bible to be literally true. That is another gross error that is attempted by the true believers in atheist darwinism and is shown time after time to be false.

While it is true that "you would argue" that we NOT accept the details of what God said "no matter what"... it is NOT true that you have made any attempt at ALL to show that your attempts are exegetically faithful to the text of scripture.

Indeed it is glaringly obvious that you do not even attempt it!!

You admit slicing dicing and "downsizing" the Word of God until all you have left are those tiny kernels that turn out to be error wrapped in a cold blanket of illogical compromises with the doctrines of atheist darwinism.

Darwin HIMSELF admitted that his views were totally INCONSISTENT with the plain teaching of the Word of God.

It is sad that Christians today can imagine a way to cling to Darwin while REJECTING What Darwin said about his own views!!!

How sad.

None are so blind as those who will not see!!

Why not trust God instead??

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you could only take a 15 minute break from your all out denial of science reason and scripture - you could read what TP wrote about Jacob and the solution that was shown from Gen 30-31 where we SEE what happens when the culture and superstition of the Bible character is corrected by the scientifically accurate GOD of the Bible.

However you seem to be so bent on nothing more than "story telling" that you are not actually addressing the salient points of the discussion at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh, I know they "address" it. That (or one similar) was one of the first articles that I ever read by them, when a fellow pastor at a church up here pointed me to them.

But, they "addressed" it in the way that you can make it say whatever you want, instead of being consistent. This same friend can make the same expression mean three different things in three different places to "address" an area of inconsistency in his preaching.

AiG tries to force things to fit a preconceived mold that there's no need to do according to Scripture, just as much as evolutionists try to force things to fit their preconceived mold. The Paluxy footprints are a good example, although to their credit (and my friend's dismay and disappointment in AiG), they withdrew their support for them, "awaiting further study".

See, the thing is, the Bible doesn't tell us when God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible doesn't tell us how he created the things that are currently in it. The Bible doesn't even specify a calendar telling us how long he took to redeem the earth from its fallen state. (Now, I believe it's 6 literal days, but that's simply opinion that is not based on precise Scriptural context or grammar.)

It should be enough that God did it because he said he did it, and he didn't say when or how.

Satan was created to have dominion over the earth before he fell. Did this happen the same day that man was created? When did he fall? The Scriptures don't give us a calendar for these events, they simply tell us that they happened.

The only thing the Scriptures don't permit is an absolute 6 day creation of everything. That idea is just as wrong as Darwinian evolution.

 

I don't usually partake in conversations about thr creation and science. i cannot see why Christians are so apologetic. Too often their appeal to 'science', is - like DHK has said above - "almost comical". The task of explaining, is that of the 'evolutionists' - not the Christians, because the Christian has got the one and only 'PROOF' for what he belives; he is able to give reason for the faith that in him is;. It is the "substance of things not seen" "Faith". And faith being "the gift of God", Faith is the substance of proof being given the believer by no one less than Almighty God Himself. So I don't care what 'science' say. It will always remain the science of man - mere mortal, fallible, comical, pathetic, foolish, man.

 

quote:

"See, the thing is, the Bible doesn't tell us when God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible doesn't tell us how he created the things that are currently in it. The Bible doesn't even specify a calendar telling us how long he took to redeem the earth from its fallen state. (Now, I believe it's 6 literal days, but that's simply opinion that is not based on precise Scriptural context or grammar.)"

GE:

See what I mean? 'Now, I believe it's 6 literal days, but that's simply opinion that is not based on precise Scriptural context or grammar'?
No! I believe it's 6 literal days, because that is based on precise Scriptural context and grammar!

"... the Bible doesn't tell us when God created the heavens and the earth"?

It does.
It says, "in the beginning God ...") "But God ..." says Romans 5; it is the same God of redemption. If his salvation is real and true, so must be his creation-word.

"The Bible doesn't tell us how he created ..."?

It does.
It says by speaking, God created.

"... the things that are currently in it"?

Nothing that is, is not, within God's will and willing - even those things we as humans are unable to understand.

"... The Bible doesn't even specify a calendar telling us how long he took to redeem the earth from its fallen state"?

It does.
It says, "In the fulness of time ...".

So we know 'the end is near; repent and believe!'

 

So God is wrong because you can't understand the literal account of the Scripture. Amazing! Is this a blame God because I can't understand what you wrote theory? I only heard of that one among the J.W.'s and their refusal to believe the trinity "because they can't understand it."

 

It's specifically because I accept the literal account in Scripture, but reject the spin that man has added. It's because God's words will not permit an absolute 6 day creation of everything. It would contradict other Scriptures and make God a liar. How many contradictions are you willing to accept in Scriptures?

By supporting an absolute 6 day creation, you are calling God a liar.

By putting any other time frame on it, we are using intellect, and rejecting Scriptures. We're given a calendar of events that happened, but only a few specifics of when they happened. But, we do know the order.

God does not say when the "beginning" was, just that it simply was.

God does not say what method he used to create man when he spoke him into existence. I reject theistic evolution, but the Scriptures don't prohibit such.

God does not say how long the earth existed before Genesis 1:2, but he does say that it existed and there was stuff here.

AiG tries to twist things using a pseudo science into saying that fossils could not be more than 6,000 years old (although some say 10,000 and I have no idea where they get that number), when Scriptures don't support any such notion. Maybe God is a sneaky little trickster and things are as they say, but I don't think so.

I think that we as man try to use our intellect to make things fit a preconceived idea that we fail to use intellect to look at.

Where Scriptures are silent, we should remain silent doctrinally.

 

How many contradictions are you willing to accept?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What the Lord says, I believe. Here is a clear statement of a six day creation that can only be taken one way. Either you believe it or you don't. There is no allegory here. Each one of the Ten Commandments were absolutes. Or do we make an allegory out of "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal?" These commands are not commands at all are they? They are just allegories, stories, myths, meant to convey some deeper meaning that we haven't discovered yet. With your method of interpretation you can make the Bible say anything you want. Maybe "Thou shalt not kill" means Thou shalt not kill except in Jihads or in Crusades. Then it is legitimate. So perhaps according to the Ten Commandments 9/11 was legitimate. Allegorize! Make something absolute say anything you want!

By putting any other time frame on it, but six days you throw your brains out the window. God created the flowers on one day, and the bees on another day. The one cannot exist with the other. If they are thousands of years apart (day-age theory) life would cease to exist. Life doesn't exist without the sun. A thousand year day would imply a thousand year night. The whole thing is ludicrous.
The gap theory is just as messed up. It denies many of the facts of the Word, that have already been established.
"For as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin so that all have sinned."
There was no death before Adam, as the Gap theorists believe and would have us to believe. The Scripture plainly says that it was by Adam that sin entered the world. There was no sin and no death before Adam. The Gap Theory contradicts the Word of God. There also is no mention of it in the NT--a monumental event for the NT authors to be silent about if it were indeed true.

Do you instruct God? Are you his counsellor? (Rom.11:33ff.) Does he have to say when that "beginning" was.

Yes he does. He spoke the worlds into existence. It was by the word of his power. He spoke and it was done.

You misread a very simple account. Verse one gives a summary statement of what is to follow. Then from verse two and following gives the method of the creation. There is no gap.

I don't know much about AiG. But I do know what I have personally studied. The 6,000 years traditionally comes from Archbiship Ussher, who added up all the genealogies in the Bible and came up with a creation date of 4,004 B.C. This was accepted by most conservatives for many centuries. More recently some have accepted that there may be some gaps in those geneologies. They also have accepted that there may be some other reasons that the date may be pushed back as much as another four thousand years. But in no way can it be pushed back millions or billions of years. Even accounting for every possible mistake in the geneological record there is no way that one could arrive at millions and millions of years old.
Have you ever considered that God created the world with the appearance of age, so that even if man could find a parcel of this earth that was still in existence at the time of Adam and Eve, it would inevitably look much older than it really is.
Have you considered what effect the Flood had upon this earth, also giving the earth an appearance of age, and the subsequent ice age that followed the Flood as a result of the climactic changes.

Have you considered that God gave us an intellect to use. If you are silent where the Scriptures are silent, then in no way would you even consider the Gap Theory.

 

The bible REQUIRES a Six Literal day Creation of ALL life on earth AND of the Sun AND of the Moon. The BEST one can "get by with" from Gen 1 is that the EARTH was ALREADY "formless and void with water covering it" on the start of day one and that the "HE made the stars also" reference is an indicator that the stars are NOT the "TWO" lights that He made on Day four just a reference to a prior fact that HE is also the maker of the stars.

But that is the MOST you can possibly get for "gaps".

I would beg to differ on that point. How in the world can we have a six day creation for ALL of life on earth and still have "theistic evolution"??

The problem is that the BEST you can get for "that STUFF" is no dry land, no light, no sun, no moon and only earth "covered by water".

How does that do anything for evolutionists of any kind at all -- even the intelligent design evolutionists are having a problem with that fact of the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It is not often that I have chance to affirm what DHK is saying - so I like to take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself.

In keeping with what DHK has said - ADAM was not created "AS A ZYGOTE". God created Adam as an adult male NOT to "trick the evolutionist" but because God was creating a system that would be fully VIABLE at each stage of creation. That means that all the animals had to be fully formed functional adults self actuated not "puppies or kittens" and not single cells laying on the ground hoping to incubate.

In the same way the ENTIRE BIOSPHERE had to be viable and COMPLETE by day 6. Insects functional and nutrients IN the soil the water the air etc.

A sterile lifeless environment with some living plants tossed in would not work!

Those who think it is "deceptive of God" to create a VIABLE living system in six days are just not thinking the problem through!

in Christ,

Bob