excreationist

But he did make a non-solar light source! He said "let there be light" and light filled the earth. Also during the first day, he separated the light from the darkness and called the light part "day" and the dark part "night". Then it says there was evening and morning... i.e. the dark part ("night"), then the light part ("day"). so after the first day, there is already day and night (which is literally light and dark), and morning and evening - that sounds like literal days to me or at least periods where the earth periodically goes from light to dark. BTW, when it says the light is called "day" and the dark was called "night" do you think that is happening historically? i.e were there about 6 periods of light and dark during the creation of the earth, plants, and people?

Where in Genesis 2 does it say that sunlight is required? YEC's say that God provided light before the sun was created (and that's how it appears with a plain reading of Genesis). Some YEC's say that the creation of light without the sun shows that the sun isn't the ulimate source of all light and life... (and isn't worth being worshipped) God can provide it himself...
There are parallels in Revelation:
Revelation 21:23 - "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."
Revelation 22:5 - "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

Genesis doesn't seem to talk about a rotating earth... (though YEC's would argue that the concept is Biblically compatible)
BTW, the initial light-source wouldn't be arbitrary... it would provide the day and night (in its absence) and therefore mornings and evenings, until the sun appeared. BTW, here it says that the date of creation for the earth and the rest of the universe, according to ancient Jewish scholars is 3761 BCE. It also says "this became the basis of the Jewish Calendar".
It also says: "3616 BCE: Estimated by the Jewish Rabbi Lipman (1579 - 1654)."
There are later Jewish dates too:
"5586 BCE: This date appeared in the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced in Egypt in the 3rd century BCE."
"5555 BCE: A data produced by Josephus, a Jew from the 1st century CE."
"5481 BCE: A second date estimated by Josephus in the 1st century CE."
He probably based a lot of it on the Septuagint though, which seems to add about 130 years to the genealogies. He would have been influenced by Greek or Roman thinking too. (The Septuagint date - which actually seems to be calculated by Greeks [or Greek Jews?] was quite far back) I think those dates would simply just be based on dating the flood, etc, later - but still having 6 literal creation days. (If they weren't literal days then they only lasted a short time - e.g. 300 years or less)

Let's assume the earth is flat (like the ancient readers probably thought)... the artifical light could simply be temporary until the sun took over.

See what I wrote earlier in this post...

From a plain reading of it, it seems that the YEC interpretation of those Exodus verses (looking only at those verses) is better and definitely not worse than old age interpretations.

Anyway, what do you believe as far as creation goes? Do you think Genesis 1 is just a poem that doesn't correspond to the order that things were created? Or does it correspond to the order they were created (the day-age theory)? Did fruit trees (day 3) appear before the sun did (day 4)? Did birds (day 5) appear before land animals (day 6)?

VonEvilstein

excreationist:

If this were so, why couldn't He have arranged for the Sun to be out at night, when the light would come be useful and appreciated?

excreationist

People are supposed to sleep at night-time! In the Garden of Eden it would have been pretty annoying to have the sun lighting everything up. Also, on day 1, God called the light "day" and the darkness "night". If the night is in fact bright as day that kind of wrecks that part of the Bible. In the New Jerusalem (I think) at the end of Revelation, there would be no night, so people can look forward to that if they want constant light. (I think there wouldn't be any sleeping ?)

Warcraft3

Hi emotional:
There was no death for humans in Eden but there was animal death outside of the garden. God specifically mentions the putting a "tree of life" in the garden. This tree was for human consumption, not for animals to eat. So man was created mortal just like you and I are, but was given a supernatural means for avoiding death. Just as man was given a suprenaturally prepared and protected place on earth----".........and God planted a garden.......". Why in the world would God "plant a garden" if the world was esentially danger free and death free? Why give man a "tree of life" if he was going to live forever anyway? Why wasnt the introduction of animal death and carnivirous activity mentioned as a result of the fall? YEC does not have answers to these questions (among others) and must be rejected on scriptural grounds.

Morton DOES believe in a literal Adam. Man is different from the animals on a spiritual level. When God "breathed life" into man, He imparted something fundamentally different in us. Spirituality and the ability to knowingly choose between "right" and "wrong". The process from which we obtained our physical form and structure is not that important of a detail.

I dont. They still have man created 5 days AFTER "the beginning". The text does not say "In the beginning God created man..." , it says the "heavens and earth" were created. So, if man came 5 days later how is that literally the beginning?

I will try to discuss my reason one at a time......



I have no interest in trying to "force fit" Genesis (or any other scripture) with evolution or any other theory for that matter. I am trying to find the interpretation that makes sense internally and answers the most anamolies within the text. YEC, in my view, leaves too much about Genesis 1-2 unexplained. I find alot of their explanations to be mere hand waving and avoidance of the strange things found in Genesis 1-2. Here are some things I find YEC to be lacking a good explanation for......

1. The reason such a place as the garden was needed in the fist
place
2. The purpose for the tree of life
3. God telling Eve He would "increase" her suffering
4. The reason why the light source on day 1 was replaced by the
sun, since they both served the same stated purpose and
were "good"
5. The reason why God does not mention a change in the animal
kingdom as a result of the fall
6. How Adam and Eve knew what the word "die" meant if they
had no concept of death
7. Why there is a verb change from "bara" in verse 1
8. Why the phrase"In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth" would imply the earth was present before day
1, but the stars were not

Okay I had more but I had to do some work so I got interupted. Ill just leave it at that since I have lost my train of thought. Derned electrical engineering work

I pray that your view on this changes some day.


Russ

Warcraft3

Hello Excreationist:
Okay first of all I think this is an area where Hugh Ross's view may have some merit. This verse may be referring to God changing conditions on the earth so that the sunlight becomes visible on the earth. (Before anyone gives me a weblink trying to disprove this theory about the early atmosphere, please note that I am aware of the fact that this is something that has been debated and have read some of the "evidence" and arguments)

Secondly, you say there was evening and morning. Okay. Show me where the ancient readers would have interpreted "evening and morning" to be something other than an ordinary evening and morning. They understood these terms with respect to the sun rising and setting, so if these are ordinary days then the sun must already be in existance. Otherwise, it does not make any sense internally.

Here is another thing to consider......God says He seperated the "light" from the darkness and then describes the light as 'good". Then on day four He "makes" the sun and states its purpose is to seperate the light from the darkness. He calls the sun "good" also. So what is the deal here? Is not the light on day 1 "good"? If it was so good then why was it replaced by something else which did the same basic job? My answer is the light was not replaced by anything because there never was a non-solar light source.

I see three possibilities here..........1.The framework view is correct to say that Days 1 and 4 are actually the same "day" 2.The days of proclamation view is correct to say that we have two things happening during the creation "week". The proclamation of events and later the fulfillment of those proclamations. The time for the proclamations is specified, while the fulfillment is not. 3.The OEC view of Dr Ross is correct to say that the sun is not being created on day 4, but is simply made visible from the surface of the earth.

Any one of these views has more explanatory power than the YEC view of the text. The non-solar light source explanation has too many problems.

I am still unsure about whether I think the account is supposed to be taken as a literal sequence of events. When I have come to a conclusion I will let you know.


It is a conclusion of a general principle derived from the statements in Genesis 2:5. God sustains the creation through ordinary means, not extraordinary means.

YECs are wrong about this. The verses in Revelation do not give any reason for believing in a non-solar light source during the creation week.

The idea of a non-solar light source is contrary to the general principle implied by Genesis 2:5.


Not all church fathers were YECs. Of those who were clear on their position, most were YECs, but not all. There were some who thought the creation week was not to be taken as six, literal, normal days. I once asked an Orthodox priest what he thought of the fathers position on the creation week. He told me there was enough disagreement among the fathers to warrant taking different positions as scriptural. He did not think the text was crystal clear on this issue.


But the light was "good". So why was it replaced? If both the sun and the "light" served the same purpose and were both "good" then why was the original light source replaced? Maybe it wasnt replaced at all. Maybe the original "good" light source WAS the sun.


I guess I have to admit that the YEC view is better than the OEC view with regard to that scripture by itself. But overall the YEC view leaves too many unanswered questions to be correct. I believe the weight of scripture supports OEC and the verse in Exodus must be taken from an OEC perspective.

I am currently considering 3 views......The framework view, The Day-Age view(Ross's version), and The days of proclamation view (Glenn Mortons version).

Possibly.
Possibly.

No.

Unsure.


Russ

CJD

I am surprised Rufus hasn't moved this yet, but I couldn't wait any longer . . .

How unfortunate. I humbly suggest that you may have overlooked the following pattern in the Genesis creation account:

Day 1 (1:3-5): "light"
Day 4 (1:14-19): "lights"


Day 2 (1:6-8): "Waters" and "Sky"
Day 5 (1:20-23): "living beings" (to the fill the waters) and "birds" (to fill the sky).


Day 3 (1:9-13) separation of the dry land from the sea / fruit and grain to grow on land
Day 6 (1:24-31): land animals (to roam the dry land) / human beings (to till the fruit and grain)

Finally, Day 7 culminates in rest, being set apart as a day for rest. Remember, if the history at the time of the writing is true, then the writer is writing to a people who were commanded to mirror this day of rest in the land that they were about to enter. Therein lies the maint point of this framework account of creation.

It is hardly scientific, nor was it even intended to be. At the very least, I think the literary qualities of Genesis call into question a rigidly chronological reading of the creation account (which, BTW, would mean that I am reading it "literally"). Oh, and emotional's contention that there is a one-to-one corollary between YEC and Christianity is entirely indefensible.

Regards,

CJD

emotional

Gentlemen,

The chief reason why I consider Christianity a great religion and got interested in it in the first place is because Christianity purports to have answers to the death question, and there is nothing that interests me more than the death question. Why we die, what happens when we die, and what we can do about it - those are questions that I've delved into since I was a little kid, and Christianity certainly has answers for them.

The Christian view of death is a novel one: that death is not the natural order of things, but an aberration. That death is the "Last Enemy", an intruder into an otherwise perfect world. It certainly had an enticing ring for me, who, upon first learning about the fact of death, thought it was what spoils an otherwise perfect world. And Christianity brings the promise of defeating this enemy called Death. All I had to do next is to find out whether this scenario was true.

Now evolution sets forth an entirely different view about death: that death is the natural order of things, ever since the beginning of creation and the beginning of life on earth. Death is not an intruder, but an inevitable stage. There is actually nothing we can do about it, and there is no possibility of "triumph over death".

When the Christian scriptures call death the "Last Enemy", they refer generally to death, not just to human death. Death is an intruder that wasn't in this world originally in the beginning.

The old-earth creationist or theistic evolutionist teaching that death was the natural order of things before the Fall of Adam is really an odd scene to contemplate, when the overarching message of Christianity is considered. If death existed in the world before Adam's Fall, then the world was created with an imperfection from the beginning. If death was there from the beginning, then it is a great wonder what Christ was triumphing at. Only the young-earth creationist position, that of no death at all before the Fall, keeps the overarching message of Christianity intact.

The question, to remind you again, is: what is death? Is it the natural order of things, or an enemy that intruded into a perfect creation? The OEC and TE Christian positions have the answer be that death is the natural order of things. Thus the main thrust of Christianity, the thing that would make it an all-relevant religion, is annulled. The YEC position maintains the important tenet that death is an intruding enemy, so that the message of Christianity is as I understand it to be: a religion that concerns itself with overcoming the enemy called death.

Now for that message to be true, YEC has to be true. There must be one literal Adam and one literal Eve from whom we are all descended. There must not have been any death before their fall. Anything less than the YEC position dilutes, in my mind, the whole Christian mission.

Since I do not believe YEC to be true, I do not take Christianity seriously. Though I no longer death as the end of all as materialists do, I also do not view death as an enemy that intruded into a once perfect creation, but as a natural order of things, a consequence of primeval natural law. I simply don't see Christianity competing as a relevant religion, as a religion of truth, except under the YEC position. OEC and TE Christianity simply throw the central Christian message (again: that death is an enemy that needs to be overcome) over the water.

Still, I'll be glad to hear from you OEC/TE Christians how this is not so.



How can Morton believe in both a literal Adam and biological evolution? For biological evolution means Adam never existed! Biological evolution says "ape-like ancestors were our fathers" and not "Adam our father". Also, the boundary between apes and men, in evolutionary thinking, isn't at all clear-cut, but it's a continuum. An ape-like ancestor didn't directly give birth to a man.

I have this problem with the Pope's assertion that God inserted a soul into the first man. What first man? Or what first men? When was the border-tape cut with God's scissors? Since I believe in both evolution and souls, I can't believe that only mankind has a soul - I believe all conscious animals have a soul (or more accurately a duplicate astral body, since I'm a spiritualist).

I used to be a theist in the past (an Orthodox Jew) and I left theistic belief out of sheer incapability to believe in it. I don't think I'll ever return to theism. History and historical science show very clearly that the rigorous, blind and indifferent operation of natural law has been without deviation ever since the beginning. Before I can bring myself to believe prayer could help me pass an exam, I would like to see a demonstration of prayer relieving mass famine in Africa.

excreationist

CJD:
What about:
Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Exodus 31:17 - "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."
It doesn't say "according to the creation poem..." it talks in a literal sense - that it is a historical fact that God created the universe in six days.
Also, this
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvCr3.jpg
shows that the Noah's Flood story seems to have an even more sophisticated poem-like structure... does that "prove" that the authors of the Bible didn't intend it to be viewed as real history?

emotional:
I think steadele has a good point about the tree of life - it apparently allowed those who ate of it to live forever... (i.e. there would be death amongst animals ?)

See these verses about the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Revelation 2:7, 22:2, 22:14 and 22:19 talks about the saved people being allowed to eat from the tree of life. It doesn't seem to say directly that the act leads to eternal life though...

On the other hand, sometimes in the Bible eternal life doesn't seem to be related to death - e.g. when torment is involved, such as in hell, and even on earth:
Revelation 9:6
During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

steadele:
See what I just wrote... though you seem to have a good point about the tree of life as far as Genesis and a lot of Revelation goes, what about things like Revelation 9:6? And BTW, do you think hell involves eternal torment? If so, it would be without the tree of life, since Revelation only talks about the saved being able to eat from the tree of life.

BTW, for this thread, when I refer to a YEC, it will mean someone who believes in 6 literal days - i.e. that the universe is about 6000-8000 (or 10,000) years old. According to that definition of a YEC, they don't necessarily follow AiG or ICR and don't necessarily believe the earth is round or that there was no animal death before the fall. Those YEC's could be ancient Hebrew people.

Now, using that definition of a YEC:
Maybe it was a symbiotic thing. According to Genesis 2:6, "there was no man to work the ground".... i.e. the garden needed a person to maintain. See also Gen 2:15 - "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." Gardens are apparently prettier than chaotic natural vegetation. And the garden can't initially span the entire globe since there was only one person. But there would be general vegetation in other parts of the globe. It wouldn't be very hard work though since there weren't any thorns yet, etc.

It seems to keep humans immortal. According to my definition of YEC for this thread, to be a YEC you don't need to believe that every animal and human was immortal before the curse and the tree of life was irrelevant.

So there was some pain. Just because AIG give bad answers about those things it doesn't prove that the interpretation about the Bible meaning 6 literal days is wrong. (Whether it is historical or not is not being debated here, just what the authors of the text intended to say)

It shows that the sun isn't the original source of light and life, and it parallels with Revelation where there is light without the sun. It also would provide a literal way of having day (light) and night (dark) as well as morning (the beginning of light on earth) and evening (the ending of light on earth).

Just because AIG give bad answers about those things it doesn't prove that the interpretation about the Bible meaning 6 literal days is wrong.

AIG believes in plant death and maybe also insect death. And others who would also qualify as YEC's might believe in animal death.

AiG says this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1132.asp

Maybe "heavens" means things like empty space (where the stars would later be put) and there could be a supernatural component (e.g. where angels live or something)

Maybe the authors of Genesis had a static earth, where the light of the sky rotated around the (possibly flat) earth. And morning was when the sky had begun to light up, and evening was when it began to darken.
Also, in Genesis 1, days and nights are explicitly defined as there being light or an absence of light - rather than it being defined as there being a specific light source (the sun) or the absence of the light source.

Genesis 1:14 also says "let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" - and you can even tell what hour it is using the sun. So they don't "do the same basic job". As far as the reason why the sun didn't just appear in the first place:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
"This would have been very significant to pagan world views which tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. God seems to be making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood as the source of everything. He doesn’t ‘need’ the sun in order to create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)" [also see Rev 21:23 as an example which shows that God doesn't need the sun and moon - and for eternal life it would remind you of time a lot anyway]

That would mean there would be fruit trees before the sun had ever become visible at all.

I think the problems of the alternatives are greater...

Anyway I'm just concerned with whether the writers of Genesis intended it to involve six literal days or whether they intended it to involve longer periods of time, such as billions of years.

Genesis 2:5 makes no mention of sunlight being required. And BTW, plants can survive with artificial light such as electrical lights (and supernatural light). They don't need the sun.

Yes they do - they give an example of where God provides light to people without the presence of the sun or the moon. And assuming there was originally light before the sun in the Bible, it mirrors Genesis in the backwards way.

See my previous reply about Gen 2:5.

Earlier I said that the Jewish calender (which places the creation of the universe? at 3760 BC) is based on calculations by ancient Hebrew scholars. And they would have been respected scholars for their calculation to be adopted by the Jews like that. I think ancient Hebrew people would have a better idea about the message the ancient Hebrew authors of Genesis intended to convey than the people you're talking about. But you assume that the authors of Genesis weren't talking about 6 literal days since it conflicts with your beliefs about science. Well maybe the authors of Genesis had an incorrect view of the world.

From before - Genesis 1:14 says "let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". For the reason why they weren't created in the first place, see earlier in my post. (That God and not the sun is the original source of light and life, etc)

Note that a belief in six literal days is just that - it doesn't necessarily involve believing everything that the AiG does, or that the earth is round, etc.

Denis Lamoureux

[QUOTE]Originally posted by emotional
[B]Lamoureux's page is interesting. He recognises the ancient science in the Bible (flat earth, waters above the firmament) and calls it an "incidental vessel", but then he proceeds to say that the "faith message" of the Bible (eg humans fallen and sinful) is correct. Why should one assume it is so? If the Bible is wrong about visible things (science), why should it be right about invisible things (theology)? I have much more respect toward the YECs.

Hi,
This is a fair response, but I have to comment. Your hermeneutical approach is similar to that of YEC--it's steeped in a concordist assumption. The Bible is NOT "wrong about visible things" if YOU would respect its historical context. 3500 yrs ago, that was the science-of-the-day.

Think about it. If you were God, and you were revealing to a nomadic tribe you were the Creator. Would you talk about HOX genes, transitory forms, Big Bang, etc, etc,? No, of course not. Thus, the Bible HAS to have an ancient science, and it behooves us 3500 yrs later to read past it.

With regard to the "invisible things (theology)", just look around you--its spiritual message continues to change the lives of men and women ever day . . . me included.

Best,
Denis

excreationist

Well let's say that God wanted to tell the story that a 5 year old could understand...
Genesis could begin something like this: "A long, long, long, long time ago, the whole universe was so tiny it could fit on the point of a needle. It was also very, very, very, hot. But then it started getting bigger and bigger. After a while, some stars started appearing. Eventually, our sun appeared and the earth come out of the sun. And the moon came out of the earth (something like that). Many, many, many, years later, some very tiny living things appeared on the earth. They had babies and over the years these changed into different kinds of living things like fish and dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs, then birds and mice started to appear, then later, monkeys and apes started to appear. Then many, many years later, the apes' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-children gradually changed into ape-men and then into people."

If a 5 year old can understand that, then a nomadic person should be able to too. That story I just told would be much closer to science than Genesis - which has fruit trees being created before the sun and birds being created before land animals, etc.

So do things like Buddhism, and maybe also other religions. That doesn't prove that they're true.