More than one observation: There are plenty
of reasons for believing that "day" in the
creation account does not mean a 24 hour period.
1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to
this meaning.
So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light
Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and
the morning were the first day"
2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they
transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more
than a 24 hour period of time.
Of course they did. Are you calling God a
liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not
a
physical death does not mean that it did not
happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His
Image.
Fallen minds always want to remake God into their
own images.
3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was
created...... not a 24 hour period.
Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day
of that week when God created the earth and the heavens,
as just stated in Gen 2:4a
4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was
completed on the "day" it was begun.
So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than
God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses?
The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is
extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain
or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation
(which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day
Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life
before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until
the sixth day. Thus, there is
biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that
played out over a period of time and extended into other creation
events.
So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this
what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is
flawed
and that pagan scientists know more in their
unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give
mankind
understanding through naturalism?
If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does
it really take for God to say "Let there be light."
That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other
than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons
stated.
This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when
you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long
it
takes. In the meantime we have a written
record from the One who did create the worlds and it would
behoove
us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and
quiet our racing carnal minds.
Bishop J
--------------
Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering
to the
> idea that
> the universe, the earth, and
everything living on it were created
> roughly 10000
>
years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that
God
> created the universe, there's no other way it could have
come to be. Also,
> you are completely right:
>
>
David:
> > I think your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is
amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation of natural
laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
>
>
That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a
> purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution
can't explain life
> getting here. I t hink there is a lot of
necessary evidence missing for
> evolution, but that evolution is
accepted because the only other possibility,
> God, is ruled out
in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe
> that the
> universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a
very
> long time.
>
> Quoting David Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Conor wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven
> >>
days of creation are meant to be taken literally.
> >
>
> I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because
of the
> > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because
the first creation account
> > appears to be an empirical,
chronological style description in comparison to
> > the
second creation account.
> >
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist,
> >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a
third
> >> option, which seems to be slow in coming.
> >
> > If you believe that God created the heavens
and the earth, then you are a
> > creationist. How he did that
becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God
> > did not
create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution
> > is the only option.
> >
> >
Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should,
but
> > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and
do not incorporate
> > any creationist components. I think
your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that
gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely
scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
> >
> > My sense is that the
earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of
> >
relatively recent origin.
> >
> > David Mille r
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
>
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list,
send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be
subscribed.
