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.
