Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

[zacchaeus]

I've read all that before and would have to again, but saying stuff like... 'The bible only said herbs and seeds were for food... For animals, but it didn't say animals couldn't eat meat, or other aninals', you can't make assumptions for what isn't said, isn't there- that's at the point one reads into the scripture. The exact same verbage and use of words is used for humans... So if following that logic and rule of thumb it must be accepted to imply cannibalism on the same grounds you introduce carnivores... And you'd have to agree one would have to read that into the scriptures, that clearly isn't there

When GOD created everything it was perfect, and it was good... The tree not allowed to eat from was 'knowledge' of 'good and Evil'. They didn't even know they were naked- come on.

And what's been the goal from day 1- to eventually get everything back to how it was in the garden, where the lion lays with the lamb, and the serpent plays with the boy, and they do no harm to one another.

Are these not the basics, 101, you defer to

[abelcainsbrother]

I've read all that before and would have to again, but saying stuff like... 'The bible only said herbs and seeds were for food... For animals, but it didn't say animals couldn't eat meat, or other aninals', you can't make assumptions for what isn't said, isn't there- that's at the point one reads into the scripture. The exact same verbage and use of words is used for humans... So if following that logic and rule of thumb it must be accepted to imply cannibalism on the same grounds you introduce carnivores... And you'd have to agree one would have to read that into the scriptures, that clearly isn't there

When GOD created everything it was perfect, and it was good... The tree not allowed to eat from was 'knowledge' of 'good and Evil'. They didn't even know they were naked- come on.

And what's been the goal from day 1- to eventually get everything back to how it was in the garden, where the lion lays with the lamb, and the serpent plays with the boy, and they do no harm to one another.

Are these not the basics, 101, you defer to

Actually,I'm going to shock you but in Genesis 1 there are only three times when the word created is mentioned and Genesis 1:1 is one of them times,the only other times you see the word created is when God creates whales,animals,etc on day 5 and Adam and Eve on day 6. This is overlooked by so many so that they believe everything is being created in the 6 days.I would say it better illustrates restoration than creation.besides the first day does not start until verse 3 and we have no way of knowing how far back "In the beginning" was and I would say to blend verse 1,2 and 3 together and making them all apart of the first day is making the bible say what you want it to that the earth is young.I agree there is going to be another restoration in the future with a new heaven and earth. Anyway,I doubt I'll change your mind but this is the way I see things from my research. and bible study and to add to it the evidence in the earth lines up too,which to me further validates this interpretation.

[melanie]

We honestly do not have all the answers.
One way or the other.
Whether that be an entirely secular understanding of the origins of life or from a creationists standpoint and all the differing opinions therein.
It's speculation and interpretation.
What remains certain, not one of us knows for certain and from a Christian perspective I don't think that's an accident.
Do we throw our arms in the air and not bother to understand better, scientifically and/or scripturally of course not but every generation uncovers more of what was not known previously.
A dance for Christians between Intellectual honestly and scriptural interpretation.
There has to a balance otherwise the integrity of our faith is at stake. Not at a believers level because the truth of the gospel is found deeply rooted in a spiritual understanding but it has to tie in with what we know, which can be problematic because what we know no matter how cocky we get is limited and the intricacies go beyond our understanding.
But yet however limited our understanding is there is a need for science and scripture to not be in contradiction. Limited man with limited knowledge and understanding with imperfect interpretation trying to interpret the origins of life.
Never the best outcome for unified or correct understanding. But the pursuit of such is inspiring and necessary.

[abelcainsbrother]

We honestly do not have all the answers.
One way or the other.
Whether that be an entirely secular understanding of the origins of life or from a creationists standpoint and all the differing opinions therein.
It's speculation and interpretation.
What remains certain, not one of us knows for certain and from a Christian perspective I don't think that's an accident.
Do we throw our arms in the air and not bother to understand better, scientifically and/or scripturally of course not but every generation uncovers more of what was not known previously.
A dance for Christians between Intellectual honestly and scriptural interpretation.
There has to a balance otherwise the integrity of our faith is at stake. Not at a believers level because the truth of the gospel is found deeply rooted in a spiritual understanding but it has to tie in with what we know, which can be problematic because what we know no matter how cocky we get is limited and the intricacies go beyond our understanding.
But yet however limited our understanding is there is a need for science and scripture to not be in contradiction. Limited man with limited knowledge and understanding with imperfect interpretation trying to interpret the origins of life.
Never the best outcome for unified or correct understanding. But the pursuit of such is inspiring and necessary.

I agree with you.I also think it is important to not get so locked into our interpretation that we dare not question it. We certianly do not have full complete understanding however I think if we are truly being led by the Spirit of God then we will always strive to learn more and to consider that we can be wrong. I think back to when the ruling Catholics believed the sun went around the earth,which the bible did not even say,yet it was majority dogma at the time,so much so that they would not even look through Galileo's telescope and yet it was their interpretation that was wrong the whole time. I think we can learn from this to realize that the majority does not always have the right interpretation and we should not just hide behind Jesus and settle. God's word is living and so more is going to be revealed in God's time and I hope that we are not so locked into our interpretation that we fail to see it and change to line up with it. I accept the Gap Theory but I'll never just keep on believing it if I come to realize some new interpretation that better explains everything. I will change my mind in a heart beat.

[EssentialSacrifice]

But the pursuit of such is inspiring and necessary.

[zacchaeus]

There's no mind to change- I haven't decided one way or the other, but its obvious I absolutely lean one way. However, I've been taught and sat under teachings of OEC by way of finnis Jennings dake doctrine for four years.

[abelcainsbrother]

There's no mind to change- I haven't decided one way or the other, but its obvious I absolutely lean one way. However, I've been taught and sat under teachings of OEC by way of finnis Jennings dake doctrine for four years.

What's the problem then?I'll admit it took time for me to change my mind about it,but not four years.What is the hang-up? Is it popularity?The majority rules?The more I learn about it and compare it to scientific findings the more I'm convinced that the evidence in the earth confirms the Gap Theory and not Evolution and so I think we need to teach it as the church and body of Christ because ever since evolution became a scientific theory and the evidence that was once evidence for the Gap Theory was hijacked away to accomodate the theory of evolution it has blinded man to the truth because of evolution.I think the truth needs to be taught and evolution defeated by a much,more believable theory based on much of the very same evidence.The evidence better confirms a former world existed than it does evolution.

[zacchaeus]

Too many questions, all of the above... Not a fan of science unless Scripture compliments it, and not a poplar going guy- just lead by the spirit on the teachings of His word!

[abelcainsbrother]

Too many questions, all of the above... Not a fan of science unless Scripture compliments it, and not a poplar going guy- just lead by the spirit on the teachings of His word!

OK but the more I discover science compliments it.I also see that YEC has threw everything it has at evolution and yet has had no effect,surely the church can do better than this.Imagine using an evolutionists own evidence against himself to confirm a former world existed while at the same time explaining why the theory of evolution is wrong at the same time. This evidence originally was already used to confirm the Gap Theory,until evolution came along,then it was hijacked away to accomodate evolution. It was not discovered the earth is millions of years old because of evolution,so it is really just taking back what once confirmed the church.William Buckland became Oxford's very first Geology Professor in 1818 and he rejected early evolutionary ideas that were around at the time and taught the Gap Theory at Oxford. Charles Darwin even mentions Buckland in his book "On the origin of species" that was published in 1859 claiming Buckland would agree with him about fossils,Darwin acknowledged the fossils showed no transition yet insisted they would be found if his theory was true and claims Buckland would agree with him,eventhough Buckland rejected evolution.

[zacchaeus]

Sorry, didn't see or remember your question about replenish/replete or male/mala I believe... Which means to fill, and in context says be 1)fruitful 2)multiply and 3)replenish (fill).

Now you may say I'm reading into the text when I say it doesn't say be ye re-fruitful, or re-multiply but context is king... And I don't see drawing a complete doctrine from a single word; seems dangerous.

The word used when Noah is commanded to replenish (meaning fill or even refill) would be appropriate in context, be it to fill, or refill considering we know there were people pre-noah.

Also... Other than maybe 5-6 translations, every other translation (20+) render the correct word 'fill' including my favorite the YLT.

Also "replenish" is wholly derived from Old French "repleniss-". And we didn't have an English word "plenish" to derive it from.

[abelcainsbrother]

My response to this thread is found on....

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 47#p186847

Quoted below...
-
-
-

Bumping the thread up...

Topic of creation days Has come up on the -- Do YECs accept "ordinary days"? Thread...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=150

So to add to it here, again let us look at the 6th creation day account:

Genesis chapter Two concerning Adam and Eve creations, duties etc, all logically happened on the 6'th day of creation because the 7 day of creation had not come about due to the work going on and none resting.

So if this were are real 24 hour earth day period, then lets look at what happened.

The creation days all begin in the evening and end the following sundown. Therefore, this follows the narrative that God made animals and Adam sometime in the evening hours of the sixth day. He next brings all the animals before Adam to name.

How many of these species were there then? 10 or 50? or thousands upon thousandths? Well there are about 8.74 million animal species in today's world

http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/ ... 110823.htm

You do the math. Back in creation say there were only one million, how long would it take to name them all?

Has this been considered by YEC's?

Maybe so but explained away in various ways no doubt.

As I mentioned prior:

The Six Day of creation, if it were a real 24 hour day then during those 24 hours, Adam would have named all the animals, been put to sleep and operated on, and woman made...

Now men, if there was the perfect women, and you gals, saw the perfect man before you - what would you be thinking?

Hubba hubba - Adam says .. a WOMAN and Eve says A MAN! Hubba hubba what's this I see let's.... hmmmm edited...

Imagine that God would intervene during this time and say, only have 24 hours, lot of animals to name, No you two back to work, all hanky panky later after the seventh day that is...

So during the evening hours, God made the Animals and Adam. Had Adam name these in the dark, then put him is deep sleep, make Eve, before dawn or at least by midday... There are how many species of animals around and could these be named in a 24 hour day as well as trending and keeping the Garden of Eden as well too?

Whew, I can't get that all done in one day - can you?

Then see your mate for the first time and all the yearning too?

.. Come on now, that was one heck of a 24 hour period wasn't it?

How many animals could Adam have named during a 24 hour day with the only rest being put to sleep by God and operated on by God then Eve?

Toss n the fall of man in the mix and what a heck of a day!

This defies logic. Yes, one can pass it off as a miracle and Adam was superman and Eve Lois Lane but that simply defies all logic of even miracles. Even if God made the sun to stand still, then the 24 hour day was much longer than 24 earth hours.

So explain how could all animals be named (character assigned is more likely than a mere name like elephant) in a 24 hour day, be put to sleep, operated on, and finding your perfect mate naked before you as well as tending too and keeping a really big garden all happen in a literal 24 hours?

So, how long then were all God's creation days?

[zacchaeus]

Did Adam merely name ALL the animals, kinds, characters, groups? What was even the purpose of him naming any animal? What was God doing, Who is a God of order and reason?

Even though how is trivial, and borderline sinful in nature, when questioning an Almighty God who said He did it? How did He part the red Sea, walk on water... Etc. If He created anything at all, then everything else is possible. He said He did it and I believe Him with much faith.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sorry, didn't see or remember your question about replenish/replete or male/mala I believe... Which means to fill, and in context says be 1)fruitful 2)multiply and 3)replenish (fill).

Now you may say I'm reading into the text when I say it doesn't say be ye re-fruitful, or re-multiply but context is king... And I don't see drawing a complete doctrine from a single word; seems dangerous.

The word used when Noah is commanded to replenish (meaning fill or even refill) would be appropriate in context, be it to fill, or refill considering we know there were people pre-noah.

Also... Other than maybe 5-6 translations, every other translation (20+) render the correct word 'fill' including my favorite the YLT.

Also "replenish" is wholly derived from Old French "repleniss-". And we didn't have an English word "plenish" to derive it from.

I'm really not trying to bother you however this is just one example about the word "replenish" that you seem to think is OK to change it to "fill" when its referring to Adam and Eve but not when it comes to Noah and his family. Based on what bias? There is also several more hurdles to jump over in order to hold the YEC interpretation besides God telling both Adam and Eve and Noah and his family to "replenish" the earth. Take a look on day 5 Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales,and every living creature that moveth,which the waters brought forth abundantly,AFTER HIS KIND,and every winged fowl AFTER HIS KIND:And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24"And God said,Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND,cattle,and creeping thing,and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and it was so.verse 25 "And God made the beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND,and cattle AFTER THEIR KIND,and every thing that creepeth upon the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and God saw it was good."

OK notice the phrases "After his kind" or "after their kind" and know that these phrases are not just saying God created different kinds of animals,read what it sais, it says God made them"after their kind"or after his kind" and the word after means these kinds of life lived before so God is making these animals,etc after the kinds of life that had existed before in the former world. To read these phrases "after their kind" or "after his kind" and to claim it just means God created different kinds of creatures is not reading what it clearly says.

OK so now we have the word "replenish" being used for both Adam and Eve and Noah and his family that points to former life that existed but now we also have God creating animals,etc "after their kind" and after his kind" which all together points to former life being alive.

OK but there is even more hurdles to jump over to still hold to the YEC interpretation like that fact that we know angels are in the bible and yet in order to hold to the YEC interpretation to believe everything was created just 6000 years ago you must use your imagination to come up with the day God created angels,you will not find angels mentioned in Genesis 1,yet we know God created them. So on what day did God create angels and you cannot just make up something that is not biblical?Also when did Lucifer and a third of the angels rebel against God? We know Lucifer was a good angel at first before he rebelled,yet angels are not mentioned being created in Genesis 1.

Add all of this up and there are too many hurdles to jump over in order to reject and old earth and life before God created the animals,etc in day 5 and Adam and Eve on day 6 but also angels too.This is why I accept the Gap Theory I can see there are just too many hurdles to jump over to hold to the young earth interpretation.

[zacchaeus]

I feel like your flustered, lets regroup. I'm with you.

In context I think the law of first mention is,“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12 KJV) which seems to be a law and command of reproduction maybe?

so important that God seemingly establishes another law to help enforce it. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19 KJV)

However, I can't help but think of a cherbium...
In which I believe that everything created is already created in Heaven. In other words, everything is created after somethings image in heaven that already exists.

Though it seems like a diverting tactic, as you've quickly moved onto something else... I don't see the relevance of when angels were created, but find importance in why they were created. They witnessed creation but were obviously created outside of time, which again is a measurement for us. There's simply no speculation to the proposal especially when focus is on Gods dealings with mankind- not angels.

[abelcainsbrother]

I feel like your flustered, lets regroup. I'm with you.

In context I think the law of first mention is,“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12 KJV) which seems to be a law and command of reproduction maybe?

so important that God seemingly establishes another law to help enforce it. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19 KJV)

However, I can't help but think of a cherbium...
In which I believe that everything created is already created in Heaven. In other words, everything is created after somethings image in heaven that already exists.

Though it seems like a diverting tactic, as you've quickly moved onto something else... I don't see the relevance of when angels were created, but find importance in why they were created. They witnessed creation but were obviously created outside of time, which again is a measurement for us. There's simply no speculation to the proposal especially when focus is on Gods dealings with mankind- not angels.

I'm not getting flustered I'm really just showing you how Moses knew the earth was old and there was life before the life God created for this world.

No I could've added the verse you just gave to go along with the other verses I gave you about "after their kind" or "after its kind",etc because it says the very same thing that God created the plants,etc after the kinds of plants,etc that had already existed and no this is not referring to reproduction like you try to make it. There are other places where it talks about reproduction but these are not those places here is a verse about reproduction Genesis 8:17 "Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee,of all flesh,both of fowl,and of cattle,and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,that they may breed abundantly in the earth,and be fruiful,and multiply upon the earth. Verse 19 Everybeast,every creeping thing,and every fowl,and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth,after their kinds,went out of the ark.

These verses deal with reproduction but you need to explain how you think God creating the plants,animals,etc after their kind or after his kind means reproduction,because there is no way a person could read it and claim it is talking about reproductuction unless you are making it mean reproduction because of some reason. This is not a trick or anything it says what it says.I'm not the one making it say things it is'nt.

Not a good answer about angels,it is probably something you've never thought about before but the bible has the answer and there is no reason to brush it aside.The bible tells us in many places about angels,about Lucifer and his rebellion. I'm wondering why it seems like you that God's word does'ntmatter you've just made up your mind the earth is young and are just not going to change your mind about it.This is the word of God we are talking and God's word should always come first over doctrines of man. I'm not judging you or your salvation however it is frustrating when I clearly show you by the word of God why the young earth interpretation is wrong and yet you either think its some kind of trick I'm trying to play on you,etc. God's word has spoke for me and I have not added or taken away from what it clearly says that shows the young earth interpretation is wrong.I'mnot giving you my opinion,I'm giving you what God's word clearly says and yet for some reason it has no effect on you.