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.
