• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Calling all young earth creationists!

Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Hi,

I was wondering about your thoughts of Genesis 2:4:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

From what I know, the "Days" in chapter one are believed by you to be literal 24hr days. However in this verse, the whole creative process is described as "the day", or a single day.

So, I'd really like your thoughts on this. Thanks
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
There is no question and YEC’s agree that the word day can have multiple meanings. What makes it a single 24 hour period in the creation narrative is the numbering of the days and also the words morning and evening that describe the days. Also in Exodus 20 God told man to work 6 days and rest on the 7th just like he did when he created the world and we traditionally have done just that.
 
Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Man of Faith said:
There is no question and YEC’s agree that the word day can have multiple meanings. What makes it a single 24 hour period in the creation narrative is the numbering of the days and also the words morning and evening that describe the days. Also in Exodus 20 God told man to work 6 days and rest on the 7th just like he did when he created the world and we traditionally have done just that.
Click to expand...
What about the thought that the "Morning and evening" were in the sense that just how things are not clearly visible in the eve but are in the morning, so the figurative morning was the thought that it wasn't until some time later, after the evening, ie the morning, that it became clear what God had done?
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Youtellme said:
What about the thought that the "Morning and evening" were in the sense that just how things are not clearly visible in the eve but are in the morning, so the figurative morning was the thought that it wasn't until some time later, after the evening, ie the morning, that it became clear what God had done?
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. There is no reason to take the narrative figuratively except for one reason and that is to try to harmonize the Bible with evolution. And the evidence of that is before the ToE most all creationists accepted that the creation narrative was referring to 6 normal days, it wasn't even questioned. The plain reading is 6 normal days.
 
Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Man of Faith said:
I'm not buying it. There is no reason to take the narrative figuratively except for one reason and that is to try to harmonize the Bible with evolution. And the evidence of that is before the ToE most all creationists accepted that the creation narrative was referring to 6 normal days, it wasn't even questioned. The plain reading is 6 normal days.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's not so much to do with evolution but the age of the earth in general. They are two separate things. The days are unspecified time periods, just like you'd say "In my grand father's day, things were a lot better." or something.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Youtellme said:
I'd say it's not so much to do with evolution but the age of the earth in general. They are two separate things. The days are unspecified time periods, just like you'd say "In my grand father's day, things were a lot better." or something.
Click to expand...

The age of the earth goes hand in hand with evolution. Evolution needs millions of years. So it does have everything to do with evolution. Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God made humans male and female at the beginning of creation.
 
Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Man of Faith said:
The age of the earth goes hand in hand with evolution. Evolution needs millions of years. So it does have everything to do with evolution. Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God made humans male and female at the beginning of creation.
Click to expand...

Technically, the beginning of creation was before man came along. And then there's Colossians 1:15: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

And of course there are questions about the actual dating of the earth. Like you say, evolution needs the earth to be old. What if it isn't quite as old as we think? I'm not saying 6000 years mind.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Youtellme said:
Just saying that there is some debate, but if it's valid, I don't know.
Click to expand...
There is "some debate" about any number of topics - in great part because there is gross and willful ignorance about any number of topics.

What do you think of creationism?
 
Y

Youtellme

Active Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
There is "some debate" about any number of topics - in great part because there is gross and willful ignorance about any number of topics.

What do you think of creationism?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm a little undecided right now. I'm reading a lot from both sides of the argument. For example, you have "creationists" who claim that scientists are not allowed to bring God into science for fear of loosing funding or being kicked out of the club. And then you have scientists saying that the whole idea of a God is un-scientific. And then you have others who's faith in God is bolstered by what science discovers. The workings of nature etc builds their faith.

But just to explain, looking at the Genesis account, I think there is a lot to be said about what how it "could" have been written. I.e, it could have been a lot different. It could have started with a fully formed earth with man on it from the get go for instance.
But what I find is that there is a rough order which sort of agrees with science.
I.e, the early earth was without form, that conditions were such that the sun was not visible until sometime after the dust had settled as it were. That there was a forming of land. That there was "vegetation", then life in the sea and then life on land and then man.

And so on and so forth. Like I said, it could have been a lot different and yet it sort of nails it on the head.

What I find difficult to accept is that the ToE can account for all the complexity we see, right across the board. And the maths of it all, the probabilities are so small that what is essentially a chaotic process can do what is attributed to it.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Evolution is no more chaotic than any other natural system. The weather is chaotic, but we can still study, understand and even predict it.

Nuclear decay is chaotic... we can't predict exactly which electron will be shed, but that doesn't mean that we can't know that an electron will be shed at regular intervals and it certainly doesn't stop us from studying the process or harnessing that process for energy.

wa:do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top