Posted on 03/02/2012 8:47:11 AM PST by Ancient Drive
I object to your conclusion. God is only following logic. Without His supernatural intervention, our sky would be dark at night because the distant stars light would not have reached us. Also, between the Great Flood and the works of Satan, the aging "look" may have been accelerated by elements beyond our ken. I'll trust God and stick with literal days.
——No, saying that would make God deceptive is to hold Him responsible for the misapprehension of humans who insist on interpreting the evidence without allowing for His influence.-——
Given my understanding of the science, that would hold true for the origin of life, and the origin of human beings. AFAIK, purely material causes cannot explain these things. Miraculous intervention in the Created order would explain these things, harmonizing science with the miraculous.
But the expansion of the universe, from the first moment of Creation through the formation of the planets, can be explained by natural forces, and does not require miraculous intervention. I take this on authority from people like Fr. Robert Spitzer.
One cannot rationalize the text or try to be an apologist for God.
God’s Word is His proving ground—take it or leave it at face value.
The text reads six, 24-hour, literal days and nothing else.
Best response may be found at: http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_06.htm
I. ARGUMENTS FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS
A. HEBREW LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES...
1. Lexicographers consistently cite the enumerated days of Genesis 1:1-31 as examples of a solar day - Robert V. McCabe, A Defense
Of Literal Days In The Creation Week
2. The following examples were offered by McCabe (plus one that I
found):
a. The Dictionary Of Classical Hebrew - Clines
b. A Hebrew And English Lexicon Of The Old Testament - Brown,
Driver, Briggs
c. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
- Baumgartner, Stamm
d. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament - Saeboe
e. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis - Verhoef
f. Dictionary Of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains:
Hebrew (Old Testament) - Swanson
— These lexicons and dictionaries cite the days of creation as
literal 24 hour days
B. SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR SINGULAR USE OF “DAY”...
1. “When yôm is used in the singular and is not part of a compound
grammatical construction, it is consistently used in reference
to a literal day of 24 hours or to the daytime portion of a
literal day.” - McCabe, ibid.
2. “The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always
found in connection with prepositions, prepositional phrases
with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical
expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the
like. In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this
Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections
which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended.
If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm
does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its
normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours.” - Gerhard F.
Hasel, as quoted by McCabe
— The semantic use of the singular suggests a literal day
C. NUMERIC QUALIFIERS AND “DAY”...
1. “When each day of the creation week is summarized, the singular
‘day’ is modified by a numerical qualifier, ‘first day’ (v.5),
‘second day (v.8), and sequentially continuing to the ‘sixth
day’ (vv. 13, 19, 24, 31).” - McCabe, ibid.
2. “When yôm is qualified by a number, it is almost invariably
used in a literal sense.” - ibid.
— The numeric qualifiers suggest a literal day
D. SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING AND “DAY”...
1. “The sequential use of the ordinal numbers “first” through
“sixth” for each day of the creation week, followed by the
“seventh day” indicates a chronological progression of days.”
- E. J. Young, as referenced by McCabe
2. “What seems of significance is the sequential emphasis of the
numerals 1-7 without any break or temporal interruption. This
seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six workdays
followed by ‘the seventh day’ as rest day, interlinks the
creation “days” as normal days in a consecutive and non-
interrupted sequence.” - Hasel, ibid.
— The sequential numbering suggests a literal day
E. EVENING AND MORNING AS QUALIFIERS OF “DAY”...
1. “So the evening and the morning were the ____ day.” - Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31
2. “Whether ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used together in a context
with yôm (19 times beyond the 6 uses in Genesis 1) or they are
used without yôm (38 times), they are used consistently in
reference to literal days.” - McCabe, ibid.
— The use of morning and evening suggest a literal day
F. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND “DAY”...
1. Problem one
a. Fruit trees and seed-bearing plants were created on the
third day - Gen 1:11-12
b. Much vegetation requires insects for pollination
c. Insects were not created until the sixth day - Gen 1:24-25
d. It would be impossible for many plants to survive long
periods without insects
e. “A symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is
coordinate with literal and successive days in Genesis 1,
but this would not be the case if the days refer to extended
periods.” - McCabe, ibid.
2. Problem two
a. “If days are figurative and if there is any consistency in
interpretation, then there must extended periods of light
corresponding to ‘morning’ and of darkness corresponding to
‘evening.’” - ibid.
b. “This would guarantee that both plant and animal life would
be unable to survive.” - ibid.
— The sequence of events suggest a literal day
G. SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS...
1. In the Old Testament
a. “There are two passages, dealing with regulations for the
observance of the Sabbath that cogently reinforce a literal
interpretation of the days in the creation week.” - McCabe,
ibid.
b. “These passages are Exo 20:8-11 and Exo 31:14-17.” - ibid.
c. “According to these two texts, the references to the
creation week are not analogous - man’s rest is not simply
like God’s rest on the seventh day - instead, man is to
imitate the divine Exemplar. Since God worked for six days
and rested on the seventh, the nation of Israel must follow
his example.” - ibid.
2. In the New Testament
1. The origin of man and marriage was “from the beginning of
the creation”
a. Man was created male and female “from the beginning” - Mk 10:6; cf. Gen 1:27
b. The institution of marriage soon followed - Mk 10:7-8;
cf. Gen 2:20-24
c. If it was ages after “the beginning of creation”, this
would not be true
2. Death and corruption was a consequence of Adam’s sin
a. By man came death, in Adam all die - Gen 2:17; cf. 1Co 15:21-22
b. By man’s sin, the earth was cursed - Gen 3:17; cf. Ro 8:20-22
c. If the “days” of Genesis 1 are long periods of time,
death and corruption occurred long before Adam
— The scriptural considerations suggest the Genesis account
should be taken literally
[Such are some of the Biblical or scriptural reasons for taking Genesis
1-2 at face value. It is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of the
subject. For more information, including resources that subscribe to a
literal view of the days of Creation from a scientific perspective, here
are some...]
II. RESOURCES FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS
A. FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE...
1. A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week - Robert V.
McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist
Theological Seminary
2. Creation Days And Orthodox Jewish Tradition - Paul-James
Griffiths
3. A Summary Of Evidence For Literal 24-Hr Creation Days In
Genesis 1 - Andrew S. Kulikovsky
4. The Days Of Creation: A Semantic Approach - James Stambaugh
5. Studies About The Days Of Genesis 1 - David E. Pratte
— These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
days is biblically sound
B. FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE...
1. Institute For Creation Research - Henry M. Morris, Duane Gish
2. Answers In Genesis - Ken Ham
3. The Creation Research Society
4. Bible.ca’s Scientific Evidence For Creation - Don Patton, Steve
Rudd
5. A List Of Over 175 Scientists - who accept the biblical account
of Creation
— These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
days is scientifically sound
CONCLUSION
1. Before rejecting that God created all things in six literal 24 hours
days, one should ask...
a. Is it consistent in regards to Hebrew syntax as found in the
Bible?
b. Is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical record?
— For those who accept the Bible as the Word of God, such concerns
should be paramount
2. One should also ask...
a. Must we force our view of Genesis 1 to fit popular evolutionary
thinking?
b. Is it scientifically necessary to do so?
— Has the theory of evolution been proven as it relates to origins?
To help answer the latter questions, our next two lessons will focus on
problems with the theory of evolution...
May I add my two cents and remember you to Psalm 118:8 and the center of the Bible:
“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” Psalm 118:
With all due respect, this talk of two books makes no sense. God gave us only one, and we don’t have to twist ourselves into pretzels trying to prove what we think God REALLY meant when He said six days. As I pointed out, the Hebrew word for “day” in the Creation account always refers to a literal day/night 24 hour period elsewhere in the Bible.
The evidence for a young earth-—in other words, for the truth of God’s word-—is actually overwhelming.
Radiometric dating is extremely flawed and very inaccurate.
In Mark 10:6, Jesus said God made Adam and Eve at the beginning, not billions of years after everything else. Also, if you accept God’s word-—including Mark 10:6-—as true, you know that sin and death were not originally in the world, but were brought into it by Adam and Eve. To believe the old-earth theory, you would have to believe that there was already a fossil record when they came along, which would mean suffering, disease and death pre-dating Adam and Eve. This contradicts Scripture.
Much of the fossil record shows evidence of sudden death, as would happen in a worldwide flood, and in fact such a flood would produce exactly the kind of geological record we have today.
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 prove that the earth can’t be billions of years old.
You’re right about God not being deceptive, and that is sort of my whole point. Take Him at His word when He says He created in six days. It’s strange to me that you say it’s “possible” God created the world in some kind of miraculous manner. Don’t you agree that Creation IS the most amazing miracle of all?
Amen. I heard some teaching on the use of the word “day” in the Bible. The word for day in the Creation account (yom) is the same word used in other passages that, where those other passages are concerned, day (yom) was referring to a 24 hour period of time. I think God, a being marked by consistency, uses the very word He intends to use, to suggest the very meaning He intends for us to understand. He created the Earth, and everything in it in 6 days. He is intending for us to understand that His creation of things was recorded in blocks of specific time—and that time would be understood (someday) by His creation as they would experience it (a single day, 24 hours) throughout their lives. God, being a God whose utmost desire is to see His fallen creatures saved, would want them to see Him in every aspect of creation, including time. He sets the pattern for the people of Israel with creation (the 6 days of work, the 7th a day of rest). He sets the pattern for the church (Christ is buried on the seventh day, bringing the Old Testament system of law to an end, and is resurrected on the first day of the (new) week—introducing Grace “and, lo, I make all things new”).
God, if He is God, needs about a billionth of a half a second to speak all things into creation. He has used the 24 hour day, 7 day week time period to reveal Himself to us. God’s whole desire is that you might know Him and by knowing Him, have life in His name. Stop guessing. Be not doubting, but believe. And don’t worry, He has taken the foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom of the wise...because the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. You have God on your side when the unregenerate mock you!)
Agree with everything you said.
You know, when you really start to research and get into the young-earth theory and how everything supports it, your eyes are opened and everything falls perfectly into place. God’s plan is so beautiful, and so flawless, and everything around us confirms it, and confirms the truth of His word.
“...the truth of His word.”
My gut tells me (and this is only my gut—probably borne out of a quasi-understanding of how I, myself, have operated in the past) that folks simply choose not to believe in His word when it begins to cost them something. They believe that Christ rose (”It says so right there in the scriptures”), they believe there is a heaven and a hell (”I read that in the Bible”), they believe that Jesus forgives their sins (”Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so”), but when it comes to trusting in ALL HIS WORD, well, suddenly there is room for interpretation.
I know, I know it sounds so child-like to believe His Word says what it says/means what it says...(what did Christ say about needing faith like a child to enter into His kingdom?)
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
And that may well be; but even then if humans preemptively rule out one or more possible explanations for events, simply because those explanations are uncomfortable or challenge their worldview, that's hardly God's fault. If the researchers come to the evidence with eyes and minds open, they'll find what they find.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.