|
Because God's Word is true and every man a liar along
with the fact that God was the only
one there at the time and He has given us a written
record through his servant Moses.
This may be "simple minded" and "fundamentalist" to
your frame of reference but I can
guarantee I won't have to eat my words.
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that
God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of
most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't
they?
More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for
believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour
period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in
definition to this meaning. 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. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that
was created...... not a 24 hour period.
Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed
on the "day" it was begun. 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.
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.
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.
|
