The Days of Creation

[MMathis]

Christians say that God spoke things into existence.

Science says that in roughly 1/3000th of a second the Big Bang took place. Everything came from something smaller than a pin point or pretty much nothing.

I've said in previous posts that I believe that science is proving the Bible to be true. Those two statements basically say the same thing. There was nothing here, then in the next instant there was. All the jibberish from Hawkins doesn't change the fact that science believes there was a fast beginning and they aren't sure what caused it.

I am an old earther that believes God created everything. Why would God need to fool us by continuing to send new light into the Hubble Space Telescope and varying the speed of light in deep space and on and on...?

[dwight92070]

I do not pretend to know the answer to that, but God does not need to explain Himself to His creation, although He has done that to a great degree. We are to trust and love Him, not be suspicious of His motives. He is just and fair and His mercy is everlasting. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were one day old, yet most likely appeared to be adults. God can do whatever He wishes without fault. He created galaxies in an instant, so that the light appears on the earth, yet normally it would take billions of years for that light to reach us. Maybe God is testing us, to see if we will trust His word, even over the pittance of scientic knowledge (comparatively) that we have obtained. After all, didn't Jesus violate the laws of nature several times while He was on earth? Walking on water, changing water into wine, raising the dead, etc. It appears that He did all those things for our benefit. The Bible several times refers to times when He tests us, to see if we will trust Him. Look at Job.

[Si]

Dwight,

I am sorry I haven't replied in several days. I have quite busy but also I have been thinking how to proceed with this thread. I have to admit I don't feel very motivated to have a debate on the subject, because it not important that I convince you of my position. If YEC works best for you, I think you should stick with it. I just hope you can find a way to understand that those of us who believe in Old Earth or Theistic Evolution love the Lord just as much and that this is a peripheral issue. An evangelical who holds to these positions does not undermine marriage or any other doctrine just because they understand certain passages are not literal history. Both you and I see Genesis as God-Breathed Scripture. So in the spirit of Romans 14, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

God Bless!

[TK]

dwight wrote: "Jesus and Paul took Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history,"

It sort of hard to take both chapters literally when they are pretty different and perhaps even contradictory on some points (i said perhaps). To resolve the apparent contradiction(s) you must resort to saying something in Chapter 1 (or 2) was not exactly literal. (by the way-- have yo ever noticed how much actually happened on day 6 per Gen 1 & 2? It doesn't seem natural at all to me that everything could have happened in one day. But that's just me.)

There is no disputing that Jesus quoted from Gen 1. It is scripture, after all. Nobody here is saying that Gen 1 is not inspired scripture. The dispute (at least for me) is over the nature or genre of Gen 1 & 2.

But I tend to agree with Si that the dispute will not be resolved until either the end of time or the invention of time travel.

We have discussed on this forum in a different context Jesus's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. There is some pretty good evidence this was a story that was already in existence that Jesus used for His purposes (i.e it wasn't a true story). If so, Jesus's use of this parable does not elevate the parable itself to truth.

[mattrose]

If you are going to allow for considerations of genre, literary style and history to render Revelation 20 as symbolic, to apply a consistent standard, you have to allow for the same to apply to Genesis 1. It is as simple as that.

We live in a very sick world and people need The Lord. And quite honestly, I feel that if Young Earth Creationism is made a litmus test of orthodoxy, people are going to be driven away, and that is tragic.

I appreciate your post. I agree with it's general content and tone

2 Points I'd quibble about...

1. While I agree that YECism should NOT be a test of orthodoxy, my reason isn't that it could potentially/tragically drive people away from Christianity. The reason is that it simply isn't the center of Christianity (Christ is).

2. It isn't necessarily a 'consistent' application of genre consideration to apply a symbolic reading to Genesis 1-12. That's the very question being considered! It's fairly obvious that Revelation is a symbolic book, but YECists make some good points in their reluctance to read Genesis 1-12 as historical narrative.

[Si]

I appreciate your post. I agree with it's general content and tone

2 Points I'd quibble about...

1. While I agree that YECism should NOT be a test of orthodoxy, my reason isn't that it could potentially/tragically drive people away from Christianity. The reason is that it simply isn't the center of Christianity (Christ is).

2. It isn't necessarily a 'consistent' application of genre consideration to apply a symbolic reading to Genesis 1-12. That's the very question being considered! It's fairly obvious that Revelation is a symbolic book, but YECists make some good points in their reluctance to read Genesis 1-12 as historical narrative.

Matt,

Thanks for your post. Concerning point one, this whole time I referred to this issue as peripheral, and I have extended several olive branches. I have made clear my commitment to the centrality of the Lordship of Christ. As such, if someone with a contrary position to mine accuses me of political correctness, reinforcing unbelief, questions whether I am evangelical or protestant, tells me I am living in a dream world, and tells me I have destroyed the foundation of marriage, am I to interpret him as viewing our difference in interpretation as peripheral? It seemed to me that he viewed it quite centrally. Theistic Evolutionists face this kind of rhetoric daily. If someone who is committed to following Christ is spoken to in such a manner and not defended, they will likely not feel welcomed in that community.

Regarding point two, I may have worded that poorly. My point was that considerations of genre, literary style and history must be allowed to apply to the whole Bible. Whether you personally come to a historical or symbolic understanding was beside my point. Just as it is important to look at the Apocalyptic genre when interpreting Revelation, I think it is important to look at Ancient Near Eastern creation and flood stories when interpreting Genesis.

[jasonmodar]

As such, if someone with a contrary position to mine accuses me of political correctness, reinforcing unbelief, questions whether I am evangelical or protestant, tells me I am living in a dream world, and tells me I have destroyed the foundation of marriage, am I to interpret him as viewing our difference in interpretation as peripheral? It seemed to me that he viewed it quite centrally. Theistic Evolutionists face this kind of rhetoric daily. If someone who is committed to following Christ is spoken to in such a manner and not defended, they will likely not feel welcomed in that community.

Si,

I thought you responded calmly and rationally in the face of those accusations. I was most edified by what you had to say. You put into words many of the thoughts that were jumbling around in my head. I'm not a theistic evolutionist but I am an old-earther and much of what you had to say resonated with me.

[Si]

Si,

I thought you responded calmly and rationally in the face of those accusations. I was most edified by what you had to say. You put into words many of the thoughts that were jumbling around in my head. I'm not a theistic evolutionist but I am an old-earther and much of what you had to say resonated with me.

Thank you very much for your kind words, I really appreciate them.