Posted on 11/21/2005 1:32:29 PM PST by truthfinder9
Actually, from God's perspective, he didn't take any time at all. Many young-earthers ask "Why would god 'take' millions of years?" By the same token we could then ask, "Why would he 'take' 6 days?"
An old universe and evolution are two different things. The age of the universe actually figures into powerful evidences for design. In any case, a being outside of time wouldn't 'take' any time, it's only from our time-bound perspective that time passes.
With exception of #18, I don't know of any "denominational creationists" who advocate any items on this list. Additionally, what does the writer actually mean by "denominational crestionists"? There are a number of nondenominational ministries devoted to biblical creation - are these included?
Actually, I'm not sure what exactly "denominational creationists" means, unless he is referring in general to well-known creationists and groups. I have seen creationists refer to many of these items. Kent Hovind is a major offender, having many of these things on his website, though many other creationists have distanced themselves from him.
If that were true, the Hebrew would say "24 hour days." It doesn't, so try again.
"If that were true, the Hebrew would say "24 hour days." It doesn't, so try again."
We've been over this, but for the sake of others I'll quote from JohnnyM who answered you on this issue ...
"evening and morning means 24 hour day.The word used for day in these passages can mean a time period (i.e. in my father's day) or a 24 hour day. Evening and morning point exclusively to a 24-hour day."
"the word for "day" here in Genesis can either mean an indeterminate amount of time (i.e. in my father's day) or a 24 hour period. The fact that the terms morning and evening are used to describe this word "day" points exclusively to a 24 hour period. Add to that the fact that these days are using a numbering scheme (i.e. first, second, third, fourth, etc ) makes the general era interpretation of day make no sense. I would never say "in my father's first day he did this and in my father's second day he did that." All that would be lumped together in one generic day. Add to this the fact that God used the creation days in Exodus to highlight the observance of the Sabbath, and its pretty much a slam dunk case."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1524477/posts
post #26 & 31
Include me with those that distance themselves from Kent - a long distance. His arrogance is giving a blackeye to the Movement.
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God.
He didn't answer me, only ignored the inconvienent facts, among them being:
1.The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy. In 1 Samuel 7:2, the word for day is translated as “long time” or “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. In Deuteronomy 10:10, day is translated as “the first time” and refers to forty days. In 1 Chronicles 29:27 the word for day is translated as “the time” and refers to forty years (some translations leave it out since the context makes it repetitive).
2.Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.
3.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, the text specifically states that the land produced plants and trees. After they were produced, the text refers to seed bearing fruit being produced by these trees. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees require several years to mature before they produce fruit. Note the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a “day” could not have been only 24 hours long.
Here's a bonus:
Both 1 Chronicles 16:15 and Psalms 105:8 refer to God commanding his word to “a thousand generations.” This seems to confirm that the genealogical listings were incomplete. A “thousand generations” also seems to roughly confirm scientific dating on human origins.
Schroeder tries to combine young-earthism and old-earthism. It's interesting and he makes some good points in his books, but the physics is ultimately flawed.
"2.Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13..."
Rule #156 of arguing your point on the Internet: Repitition of a disproven argument, no matter how many times, does not make it more true.
"3.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer."
Waaa, haaa, haaa, haaa!!! Stop! stop! Your're killing me!! God creates a whole universe and then has to hang out waiting for the fruit to ripen!!!! Ho, ho, ho - that's good!
"16:15 Remember his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations"
It's refering to the future, friend. Abraham (to whom He first spoke the covenant in reference) was not 1,000 generations back from David.
I just don't get the controversy. God created the world, and none of us can say "how" He did it. It is just as hard to imagine why it would have taken 6 literal days as it is to understand why it would have taken billions of years, as opposed to a single instant of "let it be". It is not up to us to question, or even understand God's creation. The six literally days idea could be right for all I know, though the physical evidence of the material world suggests otherwise (and why would God make the evidence ambiguous then give us the brains to develop science). I just don't understand why believers fight over this issue, which is irrelevant ultimately to our relationship to the Eternal (meaning outside of time), and Infinite (beyond all possiblitity of our rational understanding) God.
"I just don't understand why believers fight over this issue, which is irrelevant ultimately to our relationship to the Eternal (meaning outside of time), and Infinite (beyond all possiblitity of our rational understanding) God."
Actually it is of the utmost importance - though that is not apparent at first glance. As I have posted elswhere recently...
"Every major doctrine of the Bible is based in the first few chapters of Genesis. If Genesis is non-historical then the doctrines are based on myth. You can work it out from there."
I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth", but there is a world of difference between myth and literalism. Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time? Not at all of course, the spiritual truth in that book is one of the most powerful found in the Bible, but it is not history. Similarly, the book of Esther. I would consider both profoundly spiritual and important, but neither is literally true history in their entireties.
"I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth","
I'm sure you didn't.
"Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time?"
I don't believe Daniel is myth. It sounds like you have been introduced to higher criticism in some form. As a former student of and reader in HC, I can tell you that often it is the higher critics and radical scholars themselves who are "writ[ing] long after the events... [and] unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time."
Here is an additional problem. If you are a Christian (not meaning to assume) then you must give the words of Christ significant, if not the very ultimate value with regards to the topics he addressed. He spoke directly of Daniel when he said:
"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." - Matt 24
So it is clear that Jesus himself ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the work under his same name.
(BTW there are many strong arguments for retaining the historical position of the authorship of Daniel if you are interested.)
You mistake my legitamite evaluation that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel himself with the idea that Daniel was not a real prophet, but sorry, there are many historical details of Daniel (and the fact that a very significant amount was written in Aramaic, and that it confuses geography with terms that would not have existed until much later in history) that are obviously put onto paper by someone much later than the events described. I have no doubt that Daniel was a real prophet whose teachings were preserved, but I do not think that book was written by him, and really, that is pretty obvious with the vaguest intellectual inquiry.
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.